| Page Range | 76201-76353 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 76351 - Honoring the Victims of the Attack in San Bernardino, California | |
| 80 FR 76335 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76288 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76279 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 76285 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 76235 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Modoc Sucker From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife | |
| 80 FR 76283 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License | |
| 80 FR 76206 - Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District | |
| 80 FR 76209 - Safety Zone; Witt-Penn Bridge Construction, Hackensack River; Jersey City, NJ | |
| 80 FR 76206 - Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill Basin; Brooklyn, NY | |
| 80 FR 76305 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Bemidji, MN | |
| 80 FR 76303 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH | |
| 80 FR 76304 - Notice of Inventory Completion: American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY | |
| 80 FR 76345 - Renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services | |
| 80 FR 76303 - Public Land Order No. 7843; Withdrawal of Public Lands for the Protection of the Split Rock and Devil's Gate Interpretive Sites; Wyoming | |
| 80 FR 76302 - Public Land Order No. 7844; Withdrawal of Public Lands and Reserved Federal Minerals To Protect Highly Significant Caves; New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 76266 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 80 FR 76269 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 80 FR 76269 - Silicomanganese from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 80 FR 76288 - NXP Semiconductors N.V.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 76292 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76293 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76265 - Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 80 FR 76286 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction | |
| 80 FR 76270 - Request for Nominations for Members To Serve on National Institute of Standards and Technology Federal Advisory Committees | |
| 80 FR 76324 - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4) | |
| 80 FR 76297 - Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; Fiscal Year 2015 | |
| 80 FR 76307 - Information Collection Activities: Oil and Gas Production Requirements; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76330 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company | |
| 80 FR 76261 - J.R. Simplot Company; Availability of Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact, Similarity Assessment, and Preliminary Decision for an Extension of a Determination of Nonregulated Status to V11 Snowden Potatoes With Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise | |
| 80 FR 76260 - Monsanto Co.; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Maize Genetically Engineered for Increased Ear Biomass | |
| 80 FR 76263 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76249 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 76312 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under CERCLA | |
| 80 FR 76277 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 76288 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 76287 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 76205 - Reorganizations Under Section 368(a)(1)(F); Section 367(a) and Certain Reorganizations Under Section 368(a)(1)(F); Correction | |
| 80 FR 76294 - Request for Public Comment on the Proposed Adoption of Administration for Native Americans Program Policies and Procedures | |
| 80 FR 76338 - Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 76313 - Privacy Act of 1974; Privacy Act System of Records | |
| 80 FR 76345 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 76250 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 76279 - Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76265 - Privacy Act of 1974, Amended System of Records | |
| 80 FR 76285 - Notice of Public Availability of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service FY2014 Service Contract Analysis and Inventory | |
| 80 FR 76264 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee to Hear Testimony Regarding Civil Rights and Voting Requirements in the State | |
| 80 FR 76287 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 76286 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 80 FR 76291 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 76314 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 76284 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 80 FR 76284 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 76281 - Lock+TM | |
| 80 FR 76283 - Albany Engineering Corporation; Notice of Successive Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 80 FR 76281 - Marshall Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 76280 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Chicago Market Expansion Project | |
| 80 FR 76280 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 76282 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 76278 - Marine Mammals; File No. 17157 | |
| 80 FR 76276 - Marine Mammals; File No. 15510 | |
| 80 FR 76278 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19439 | |
| 80 FR 76276 - Marine Mammals; File No. 16193 | |
| 80 FR 76206 - Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel; Correction | |
| 80 FR 76332 - Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Release No. 4285/December 2, 2015; Notice of Intention To Cancel Registrations of Certain Investment Advisers Pursuant to Section 203(H) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 | |
| 80 FR 76333 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 132-Equities To Delete Supplementary Material .40 Requiring Members Effecting Transactions on the Equities Trading Floor to Submit Certain Data Elements and Badge Information and to Make a Conforming Change | |
| 80 FR 76343 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 132 To Delete Supplementary Material .40 Requiring Members Effecting Transactions on the NYSE Trading Floor To Submit Certain Data Elements and Badge Information and To Make a Conforming Change | |
| 80 FR 76335 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Active Alts Contrarian ETF of ETFis Series Trust I | |
| 80 FR 76264 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 76332 - Notice of Meeting of the Hispanic Council on Federal Employment | |
| 80 FR 76230 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Placer County Air Pollution Control District | |
| 80 FR 76344 - Texas Disaster #TX-00461 | |
| 80 FR 76258 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Placer County Air Pollution Control District | |
| 80 FR 76219 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District | |
| 80 FR 76314 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 76257 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District | |
| 80 FR 76211 - Air Plan Approval; ND; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference | |
| 80 FR 76225 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Transit System Improvements | |
| 80 FR 76300 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 76298 - Draft Long Range Transportation Plan for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in the Southeast Region | |
| 80 FR 76311 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Cody Laboratories, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 76311 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Cambrex Charles City | |
| 80 FR 76312 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 76311 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 76222 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management District and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District | |
| 80 FR 76258 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management District and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District | |
| 80 FR 76267 - Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 76314 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 80 FR 76201 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 76251 - Community Forest and Open Space Rule Revision | |
| 80 FR 76232 - PM10 | |
| 80 FR 76325 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Coast Guard
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-23-250, PA-24-250, PA-24-260, PA-24-400, PA-30, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31P, PA-39, and PA-E23-250 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an accident caused by fuel starvation where the shape of the wing fuel tanks and fuel below a certain level in that tank may have allowed the fuel to move away from the tank outlet during certain maneuvers. This AD requires installing a fuel system management placard on the airplane instrument panel and adding text to the Limitations Section of the pilot's operating handbook (POH)/airplane flight manual (AFM). We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 12, 2016.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ansel James, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5576; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-23-250, PA-24-250, PA-24-260, PA-24-400, PA-30, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31P, PA-39, and PA-E23-250 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 15171, March 23, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Edward Rognerud and an anonymous commenter requested that the AD be written to allow for the local fabrication of the required warning placard as long as it contains the exact warning text mandated by the service information and is printed in 8-point type. The anonymous commenter also requested that the AD allow for the installation of the warning placard onto the instrument panel at any location that does not obscure existing controls, instruments, or markings and is in clear view of the pilot.
The commenters requested this change as a means of controlling the cost of compliance without compromising safety.
We agree with the commenters that local fabrication of the warning placard may be necessary if the shape of the placard available from Piper Aircraft, Inc. does not fit on the instrument panel. The service information contains the exact text, font size, and installation restrictions necessary for the local fabrication of a compliant placard. Paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD included instructions to fabricate and install the placard. This implied that the placard can only be fabricated if the placard available from Piper Aircraft, Inc. does not fit on the instrument panel.
We revised the AD as requested to allow for the fabrication of the placard following the instructions in the service information under any condition.
Edward Rognerud and an anonymous commenter requested the updating of the airplane's POH/AFM by inserting a locally fabricated supplemental page into the Limitation Section as an alternative to inserting a supplemental page bought from Piper Aircraft, Inc. We infer the commenter's meaning to be that a locally fabricated supplemental
The commenters requested this change as a means of controlling the cost of compliance without compromising safety.
We agree with the commenters that compliance can be shown with paragraph (h)(3) of the AD by inserting into the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM a locally made supplemental page containing the applicable placard text or a supplemental page procured from Piper Aircraft, Inc.
We revised the AD as requested.
An anonymous commenter requested a private pilot certificate as a minimum credential for AD signoff in airplane's logbook. The anonymous commenter requested this change to control cost of compliance without compromising safety.
We agree with the anonymous commenter. We determined that the installation of a purchased or locally fabricated supplemental page into the POH/AFM can be done by the owner/operator with at least a private pilot certificate. We have also determined that the local fabrication and installation of the placard following the instructions in the service bulletin can be done by the owner/operator with at least a private pilot certificate.
We revised the AD as requested.
Jeffrey Aryan commented that the proposed AD is not appropriate. The commenter also wrote that the proposed AD would add a more cumbersome display to an already crowded flight deck. We infer that the commenter requested withdrawal of the NPRM.
We disagree. The FAA evaluated all relevant information and determined that the addition of the placard to the instrument panel and the supplemental pages to the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM will address the unsafe condition identified in the AD.
We made no change to the AD as a result of this comment.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15171, March 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15171, March 23, 2015).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, calls for/describes actions for, when necessary, installing the correct fuel warning placard on the instrument panel and adding correct text of that fuel warning placard in the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM. This information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3,000 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary placard/POH/AFM order and installation that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need any necessary placard/POH/AFM order and installation:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
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 January 12, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the following Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes, certificated in any category:
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 1130, PLACARDS AND MARKINGS; Interior Placards.
This AD was prompted by an accident caused by fuel starvation where the shape of the wing fuel tanks and fuel below a certain level in that tank may have allowed the fuel to move away from the tank outlet during certain maneuvers. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine power due to fuel starvation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power or engine shutdown, which may result in loss of control.
Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after January 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do the actions in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as applicable, including all subparagraphs.
(1) Inspect the fuel warning placard, if existing, following the Instructions section, of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. If the placard is present and compliant with the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, then no further action regarding the placard is required.
(2) If the fuel warning placard is not present or not compliant with the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, then order the applicable placard from Piper Aircraft, Inc. at the address identified in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD. Alternatively, you may fabricate the applicable fuel warning placard following the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. Install the fabricated fuel warning placard or the fuel warning placard obtained from Piper Aircraft, Inc. following the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014.
(1) Inspect the Limitations Section of the applicable POH/AFM following the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014.
(2) If the Limitations Section of the applicable POH/AFM contains the exact text found in table 2 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, there is no need for a POH/AFM revision.
(3) If the Limitations Section of the applicable POH/AFM does not contain the exact text found in Table 2 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014, then revise the POH/AFM by inserting into the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM a fabricated supplemental page containing the applicable placard text from the Appendix to this AD or a supplemental page obtained from Piper Aircraft, Inc. at the address identified in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD.
In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 43.3 and 43.7, the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, to include all subparagraphs, may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417. This authority is not applicable to airplanes being operated under 14 CFR part 119.
(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
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Ansel James, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5576; 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) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9739) that provide guidance regarding the qualification of a transaction as a corporate reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F), and which were published in the
This correction is effective December 8, 2015 and applicable September 21, 2015.
Douglas C. Bates at (202) 317-6065 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations (TD 9739) that are the subject of this correction are under section 367 and 368 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulation (TD 9739) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(m) * * *
(4) * * *
* * * The result would be the same with respect to qualification under section 368(a)(1)(F) if, instead of merging into S2, S1 completely liquidates or is deemed to liquidate by reason of a conversion in an entity disregarded as separate from its owner under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter.
* * * Each of T, P, and S is a State A corporation engaged in a manufacturing business.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Interim final rule; correction.
On Monday, November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74678-74694), the Department of Defense published an interim final rule titled Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel. Subsequent to the publication of the interim final rule, the Department of Defense discovered that the phone number in the
This correction is effective on December 8, 2015.
Ron Horne, 703-614-8631.
On page 74679, in the first column, the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement.
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulation pertaining to the Charleston Parade of Boats from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. on December 12, 2015. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Charleston Parade of Boats. During the enforcement period, the special local regulation establishes a regulated area which will prohibit all people and vessels from entering. Vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
The Charleston Parade of Boats regulation in 33 CFR 100.701 will be enforced from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. December 12, 2015.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Charleston Parade of Boats in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. on December 12, 2015.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701 no vessels or people may enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission to do so from the Captain of the Port. Only event sponsors, designated participants, and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area. This rule creates a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the waterways during the parade transit from Charleston Harbor Anchorage A through Bennis Reach, Horse Reach, Hog Island Reach, Town Creek Lower Reach, Ashley River, and finishing at City Marina. Spectator vessels may transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of parade participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a).
The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of Mill Basin surrounding the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge. This rule allows the Coast Guard to prohibit all vessel traffic through the safety zone during bridge replacement operations, both planned and unforeseen, that could pose an imminent hazard to persons and vessels operating in the area. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life in the vicinity of the construction of the new Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge and demolition of the old Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge.
This rule is effective January 7, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard 718-354-4195, email
On Friday, March 13, 2015 the Coast Guard published a NPRM titled, “Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill Basin, Brooklyn, NY” in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The COTP New York has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge construction may occur within a 200-yard radius of the bridge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels, workers, and the navigable waters in the safety zone associated with the bridge construction operations.
As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published March 13, 2015. In response, there are two changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the published NPRM.
A representative of Miramar Yacht Club, located on Sheepshead Bay, NY, submitted a comment identifying nine issues to the proposed rulemaking. Many of the omissions cited by Miramar Yacht Club occurred due to the limited construction schedule timeline in possession of the Coast Guard at the time the proposed rulemaking was published. The nine issues are as follows:
1. Failure to require entry and egress to Mill Basin at least 3-4 days every week during daylight hours.
Access to Mill Basin will be provided daily during daylight hours. The existing work plan will only require an approximate 30-minute channel closure, approximately July through August, during steel erection. This is similar to the steel erection procedures and channel closures in use at the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge replacement project over Gerritsen Inlet, approximately 1.2 nm to the southwest. Upon completion of the new bridge, channel closures during demolition of the existing bridge are scheduled during the winter of 2016-2017. NYC DOT must still submit channel closure requests to USCG Sector New York for final approval. Enforcement times may last longer than 30 minutes during demolition of the existing Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge.
2. Failure to ensure that entry and egress to Mill Basin is available in advance of a named storm in order to take refuge and be hauled out at a boat yard.
Entry and egress to Mill Basin will be available in advance of a named storm.
3. Failure to require at least two weeks prior notice of pending closures to Mill Basin users.
NYC DOT will provide at least two weeks' notice prior to pending channel closures. NYC DOT has established a community relations liaison position for this project as they have for the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge replacement project over Gerritsen Inlet. Persons requesting to be added to the liaison's notification list for project updates may email
4. Failure to prohibit or significantly limit closures from May through October during high recreational traffic in Mill Basin.
In actuality, channel closures are limited during this project. See our response in paragraph 1 above.
5. Failure to restrict NYC DOT operations which create or are at risk of creating an imminent hazard to Mill Basin users or limit vessel access when vessel traffic is least affected.
In actuality, channel closures are limited during this project. See our response in paragraph 1 above.
6. Failure to require NYC DOT to establish and maintain a construction schedule which minimizes and mitigates interference with vessel access to, from, and through Mill Basin.
In actuality, channel closures are limited during this project. See our response in paragraph 1 above. In addition, the USCG Bridge Permit 5-09-1 requires that, “All work shall be so conducted that the free navigation of the waterway is not unreasonably interfered with and the present navigable depths are not impaired. Timely notice of any and all events that may affect navigation shall be given to the District Commander during construction of the bridge”.
7. Failure to address the fact that NYC DOT operations are subordinate to the USCG's obligations to keep access to the navigable waterways of the United States free from obstruction and interference and not vice-versa.
The bridge is being constructed under the authority of a bridge permit issued by the USCG. The safety zone is being established under the Federal authorities listed in the Regulatory text. NYC DOT must still submit channel closure requests to USCG Sector New York for final approval. However, USCG Bridge Permit 5-09-1 states, “Issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the obligation or responsibility for compliance with the provisions of any other law or regulation as may be under the jurisdiction of any federal, state or local authority having cognizance of any aspect of the location, construction or maintenance of said bridge”.
8. Failure to require the least burdensome restriction of access possible.
See our response in paragraphs 1 and 6 above as to how channel closures are limited during this project.
9. Failure to have a “sun set” provision in the rule which clarifies the temporary right to direct Mill Basin waterway closures.
As stated in the NPRM (Discussion of Proposed Rule), the current construction completion date for the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Replacement work over Mill Basin is 2021. Not publishing a contract completion date in the Regulatory text allows the USCG to enforce the safety zone if there are any unforeseen circumstances that prevents the contractors from finishing the project on time. If a contract completion date (“sun set provision”) was published in the Regulatory text and the project was not completed on time, then publication of an additional Temporary Final Rule would have been required that in all likelihood would not have provided a public comment period. Once the bridge project is complete, the USCG will disestablish this regulation via a Direct Final Rule.
As a result of the comment we received, we are making the following two changes to the regulatory text:
1. This regulation is assigned the permanent section number of 33 CFR
2. The Enforcement Periods notification regulations proposed in § 165.161(c)(2) of the NPRM is revised to the standard notification requirement listed in 33 CFR 165.7. The two week notification process for channel closures does not allow sufficient time for us to draft, review, and obtain the COTP's signature, and have the Notification of Enforcement published in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on January 7, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of the Shore (Belt) Parkway Mill Basin Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, workers, and the navigable waters in the safety zone associated with the bridge construction and demolition operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a small designated area of Mill Basin for approximately 30 minute intervals during weekdays when vessel traffic is normally low. Safety zone enforcement times may be longer during demolition operations of the old Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a District One Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) via
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) The COTP will rely on the methods described in § 165.7 to notify the public of the enforcement of this safety zone. Such notifications will include the date and times of enforcement, along with any pre-determined conditions of entry.
(d)
(2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's designated representative.
(3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Hackensack River surrounding the Witt-Penn Bridge between Jersey City and Kearny, NJ. In response to a planned Witt-Penn Bridge construction project, this rule allows the Coast Guard to prohibit all vessel traffic through the safety zone during bridge replacement operations that could pose an imminent hazard to persons and vessels operating in the area. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life in the vicinity of the construction of the Witt-Penn Bridge.
This rule is effective January 7, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone (718) 354-4195, or email
On April 7, 2011 the Coast Guard issued a Bridge Permit approving the location and construction of the Witt-Penn Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.1, between Kearny and Jersey City, NJ. The Coast Guard published a Solicitation of Comments from NJ DOT in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners #16 (April 23, 2014) through #20 (May 21, 2014). This solicitation requested comments regarding impacts to navigation from NJ DOT's proposed tentative channel closures/restrictions.
On June 26, 2015, we published an NPRM titled Safety Zone; Witt-Penn Bridge Construction, Hackensack River; Jersey City, NJ in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published June 26, 2015. We received one comment regarding nurse infection control in a rural area in the State of Missouri. This is outside the purview of this rulemaking. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone on January 7, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within approximately 500 feet of the Witt-Penn Bridge (river mile 3.1) on the Hackensack River between Jersey City and Kearny, NJ. The duration of the zone, one to 21 days, is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels during bridge construction and demolition operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the safety zone will be limited to the Hackensack River area, closures will be of a limited duration (one to 21 days), and waterway users have already been notified of the proposed closures through the Local Notice to Mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue advanced public notifications to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to marine broadcasts or Local Notice to Mariners which would allow the public an opportunity to plan for these closures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting between one and 21 days that will prohibit entry within
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard will rely on the methods described in § 165.7 to notify the public of the time and duration of any closure of the safety zone. Violations of this safety zone may be reported to the COTP at 718-354-4353 or on VHF-Channel 16.
(d)
(2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's designated representative.
(3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the North Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the North Dakota Department of Health and approved by the EPA. In this action, the EPA is also notifying the public of corrections to typographical errors and minor formatting changes to the IBR tables. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the EPA Regional Office.
This action is effective December 8, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0047. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6142,
The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, the EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultation between the EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of Plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997,
In this action, the EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of August 1, 2015. The EPA is also correcting typographical errors, including omissions and other minor errors in subsection 52.1820, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon a finding of “good cause” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's action simply updates the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law.
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the North Dakota regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the North Dakota SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization action for North Dakota.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b)
(2) EPA Region 8 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the SIP as of August 1, 2015.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the EPA Region 8 Office, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance (OPRA), Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing coating operations. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on February 8, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by January 7, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0690, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On April 30, 2015 and August 13, 2015, the EPA determined that the submittals for SCAQMD Rule 1151 and YSAQMD Rule 2.26 respectively met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are previous versions of Rules 1151 and 2.26 in the SIP. The SCAQMD and the YSAQMD adopted earlier versions of these rules on June 13, 1997 and April 27, 1994 respectively, and CARB submitted them to us on March 10, 1998 and February 24, 1995 respectively. We approved these versions of Rules 1151 and 2.26 into the SIP on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44134) and April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962) respectively. The SCAQMD amended Rule 1151 on December 2, 2005, and CARB submitted the amended rule to us on April 6, 2009. We approved this version of Rule 1151 on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58459).
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rules 1151 and 2.26 establish limits on the emission of VOC and workplace standards for motor vehicle and mobile equipment coating operations. They also regulate related recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). SCAQMD and YSAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme and severe respectively for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305). There are no EPA CTG documents relevant to the sources addressed by these rules. However, CARB's “Suggested Control Measures for Automotive Coating” is useful in defining RACT for these activities.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).
4. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40 Subpart B National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings § 59.102 Standards table 1 (40 CFR 59.102, table 1).
5. SCAQMD Rule 1151, “Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations,” approved into the SIP on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58459).
6. SCAQMD Rule 1151, “Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations,” amended September 5, 2014.
7. YSAQMD Rule 2.26, “Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,” approved into the SIP on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962).
8. YSAQMD Rule 2.26, “Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,” amended October 10, 2008.
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the SCAQMD and YSAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Inter-governmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(461) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
(463) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on February 8, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by January 7, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0619, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972 3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On May 13, 2014 the EPA determined that the submittal for AVAQMD Rule 1113 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
On December 18, 2014, the submittal for FRAQMD Rule 3.15 and SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.
There is a previous version of AVAQMD 1113 adopted by the district on March 18, 2003. The EPA finalized a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of this version on August 26, 2004 (69 FR 52432).
We approved Sutter County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) Rule 3.15, “Architectural Coatings,” and Yuba County Air Pollution Control District (YCAPCD) Rule 3.15, “Architectural Coatings,” into the California SIP on May 3, 1982. SCAPCD and YCAPCD joined together to form the FRAQMD on September 3, 1991; however, SCAPCD Rule 3.15 and YCAPCD Rule 3.15 have remained in the SIP. The EPA is approving removal
There are no previous versions of SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 in the SIP.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Architectural coatings are coatings that are applied to stationary structures and their accessories. They include house paints, stains, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products. VOCs are emitted from the coatings during application and curing, and from the associated solvents used for thinning and clean-up.
AVAQMD Rule 1113 controls VOC emissions from architectural coatings by establishing VOC limits on any architectural coating supplied, sold, offered for sale or manufactured for use within the AVAQMD. The major revision to Rule 1113 is elimination of the averaging provision which was the primary basis for the EPA's 2004 limited disapproval of a prior version of this rule.
Rule 3.15 and SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 similarly control VOC emissions by establishing VOC limits on architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale or manufactured for use within the FRAQMD and SBCAPCD.
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2)). The EPA has designated a portion of the FRAQMD (specifically, southern Sutter County) as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards. Similarly, the EPA has designated the AVAQMD as severe nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the SBCAPCD as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. Because there are no relevant EPA CTG documents and because there are no major architectural coating sources, architectural coatings are considered area sources of VOC and are not subject to RACT requirements. However, architectural coatings are subject to other VOC content limits and control measures described in the TSDs.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate the enforceability, revision/relaxation and stringency requirements of this rule include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).
4. National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings, 40 CFR 59.400, Subpart D, Table 1, VOC Content Limits for Architectural Coatings.
5. California Air Resources Board (CARB) “Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings,” Approved 2007, February 1, 2008.
6. AVAQMD Rule 1113,”Architectural Coatings,” EPA Limited Approval and Disapproval on August 26, 2004 (69 FR 52432).
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, ”Architectural Coatings,” amended June 3, 2011, and approved into the SIP on March 26, 2013 (78 FR 18244).
8. SCAPCD Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings, submitted January 28, 1981, and approved by the EPA May 3, 1982 (47 FR 18856).
9. YCAPCD Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings, submitted March 30, 1981, and approved by the EPA November 10, 1982 (47 FR 50865).
10. FRAQMD Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings, adopted June 19, 2014, and submitted November 6, 2014.
11. SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 Architectural Coatings, adopted June 19, 2014, and submitted November 6, 2014.
12. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS—Phase 2, 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 25, 2005).
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations and stringency. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules, but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the AVAQMD, FRAQMD, SBCAPCD, SCAPCD and YCAPCD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(89) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) Previously approved on May 3, 1982, in paragraph (c)(89)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(457)(i)(A)(
(98) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) Previously approved on May 3, 1982, in paragraph (c)(98)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(457)(i)(A)(
(441) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(
(457) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(G) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision removes from the SIP the design aspect of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector transportation control measure as a requirement in the Massachusetts SIP, without substitution or replacement, and in addition implements administrative changes that lengthen the existing public process requirement so that a public meeting on the annual update and status report be held within seventy-five days of its July 1st submittal date and replaces references to the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) with references to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on January 7, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0786. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Air and Climate Division, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1668, fax number (617) 918-0668, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71061), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The NPR proposed approval of a revised version of 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.36, “Transit System Improvements,” effective under Massachusetts law on October 25, 2013. An earlier version of this rule had previously been approved by EPA into the Massachusetts SIP. See 73 FR 44654.
The revised regulation: (1) Deletes the SIP requirement to design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station; (2) lengthens by fifteen days (from sixty days to within seventy-five days of the July 1 submittal date) the time period within which MassDEP must hold a public meeting to take public comment on MassDOT's annual update and status report for each project required by 310 CMR 7.36(2)(f) through (j) and any project implemented pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(4) and (5); and (3) replaces references to the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Transportation and EOT with Massachusetts Department of Transportation and MassDOT, respectively. The formal SIP revision was submitted to EPA by Massachusetts on November 6, 2013.
EPA's role in reviewing SIP revisions is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. An adequate SIP revision is one that, among other things, meets the Clean Air Act requirement under CAA section 110(l) that a SIP revision must not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171) in relation to the national air quality standards (NAAQS) or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The Commonwealth has flexibility to revise SIP-approved transportation control measures (TCMs), provided the revisions are consistent with attaining and maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has determined that the removal of the design aspect of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the SIP, as well as the administrative revisions included in Massachusetts' November 6, 2013 SIP submittal, do not interfere with attainment or with reasonable further progress or any other applicable Clean Air Act requirement. Therefore, we are approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.36, “Transit System Improvements.”
EPA received forty-one comments on our December 1, 2014 NPR. Comments were received from: U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey; U.S. Representatives Michael Capuano and Katherine Clark; Edward W. Deveau, Candidate for State Representative, 1st Suffolk District; Boston Councilor Salvatore LaMattina; Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport); Conservation Law Foundation (CLF); A Better City (ABC); and Frederick Salvucci (former Secretary of Massachusetts Department of Transportation). In addition, comments were received from East Boston, Dorchester, and Medford, Massachusetts residents. Although six of the forty-one comments were received after the public comment
Copies of the public comments have been placed in the public docket without change and are available online at
For a transit project to be constructed, it has to be designed first. Frequently, funding becomes available for a transit project only after it has been designed. Increasingly, only projects that are shovel-ready are eligible to apply when Federal funding opportunities arise. Thus, designing a transit project, more than anything else, raises its chances of being
It may be difficult to get Massachusetts to behave responsibly, but the least the public should be able to expect out of EPA is that it clearly find fault with the ridiculously delayed non-performance of Massachusetts, and not endorse the cynical effort to drop a commitment that has been included in Big Dig regulations since the 1990 final EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and 1991 DEP vent shaft regulations, and the 1993 SIP, and part of the basis of the 2006 court settlement.
EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.36, “Transit System Improvements,” submitted on November 6, 2013, as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP. This revised rule: (1) Deletes the existing SIP requirement to design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station; (2) lengthens by fifteen days the time period during which MassDEP must hold a public meeting and take public comment on MassDOT's annual update and status report; and (3) replaces references to Executive Office of Transportation and EOT with references to Massachusetts Department of Transportation and MassDOT, respectively.
EPA's review of the material submitted on November 6, 2013 to remove the “design only” of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project from the Massachusetts SIP; add administrative changes to lengthen portions of the public process under 310 CMR 7.36(2)(i); and update references to the appropriate State transportation agency, indicates that these modifications would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable Clean Air Act requirement.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Massachusetts' regulation described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(143) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on November 6, 2013.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.36 entitled “U Transit System Improvements,” effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on October 25, 2013.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection dated November 6, 2013 submitting a revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California SIP. We are approving a local emergency episode plan that describes actions that PCAPCD will take to prevent dangerously high ambient emission levels under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on February 8, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by January 7, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0689, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the plan addressed by this action with the date that it was adopted by the PCAPCD and submitted by California Air Resources Board (ARB).
On August 11, 2015, the EPA determined that the submittal for the PCAPCD Ozone Emergency Episode Plan met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are no previous versions of this plan adopted by PCAPCD or approved by EPA in the SIP.
The CAA requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and five other pollutants that are harmful to public health and the environment. Each state is required to submit to the EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS, or any revision thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. CAA § 110(a)(2) describes the contents required of such a plan that constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program. The PCAPCD Ozone Emergency Episode Plan is intended to fulfill the CAA § 110(a)(2)(G) infrastructure SIP requirement for states to submit an air pollution emergency contingency plan as required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart H.
SIPs must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and SIP revisions are restricted in how they can relax approved SIPs. This plan must also meet the infrastructure SIP requirements found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150 through 51.153).
Guidance that we used to evaluate section 110(a)(2) CAA requirements includes: “Guidance Document for Infrastructure State Implementation Plan” Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), EPA (September 2013).
We believe this plan is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations and infrastructure SIPs. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this plan and our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted plan because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the PCAPCD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(465) New regulation for the following APCD was submitted on July 15, 2015 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve two revisions to the Nevada state implementation plan. The first revision provides a demonstration of implementation of best available control measures (BACM) for control of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM
This rule is effective on January 7, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0633. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3963,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58640), under Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) section 110(k)(3), the EPA proposed to approve the BACM-related portion of the submittal from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) dated August 5, 2002 of
In our September 30, 2015 proposed rule, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we proposed to grant NDEP's request to redesignate the Truckee Meadows PM
We also proposed to delete the area designation for Truckee Meadows for the revoked NAAQS for TSP.
Please see our September 30, 2015 proposed rule for a detailed discussion of the background for these actions, and the rationale for approval of the 2014 PM
Our September 30, 2015 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on October 30, 2015. We received no comments on our proposal during this period.
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth in our September 30, 2015 proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve the BACM demonstration submitted by the NDEP on August 5, 2002 as part of the 2002 Truckee Meadows PM
In addition, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving the State's request, which accompanied the submittal of the 2014 PM
In connection with the above approvals and determinations, and as authorized under CAA section 189(e), we are determining that major stationary sources of PM
Lastly, the EPA is taking final action to delete the area designation for Truckee Meadows for the revoked national standard for TSP because the designation is no longer necessary.
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of
• Are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the State plan that the EPA is approving does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule, as it relates to the maintenance plan, does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, prior to its September 30, 2015 proposal, the EPA offered to consult with representatives of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, which consists of members of three Great Basin Tribes—the Paiute, the Shoshone, and the Washo—and which has Indian country within the Truckee Meadows air quality planning area because the Indian country within the Truckee Meadows area is being redesignated to attainment along with State lands. The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony did not respond to the EPA's offer to consult.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The added text reads as follows:
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the Modoc sucker (
This rule is effective January 7, 2016.
Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 1936 California Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR 97601; by telephone 541-885-8481; or by facsimile 541-885-7837. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
The Modoc sucker was added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on June 11, 1985, as an endangered species (50 FR 24526). Critical habitat for the species was designated at the time of listing. A recovery plan was adopted for the species in 1992. On June 4, 2012, we published in the
Please refer to the February 13, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 8656) for a summary of background information on the Modoc sucker's taxonomy, life history, and distribution. A completed scientific analysis is presented in detail in the Modoc Sucker Species Report (Service 2015a, entire) (Species Report), which is available at
We consider the “range” of Modoc sucker to include an estimated 42.5 mi (68.4 km) of occupied habitat in 12 streams in the Turner Creek, Ash Creek, and Goose Lake sub-basins of the Pit River in northeastern California. This amount has increased substantially since the time of listing, when the known distribution of Modoc sucker was limited to an estimated 12.9 mi (20.8 km) of occupied habitat in seven streams in the Turner Creek and Ash Creek sub-basins. This distribution represents its entire known historical range, with the exception of Willow Creek within the Ash Creek sub-basin. Previous reports of Modoc suckers in Willow Creek are based on limited and unverifiable reports (Reid 2009, p. 14), and their present existence in Willow Creek remains questionable (Reid 2008a, p. 25). Therefore, we consider the confirmed historical range to be occupied.
We have not made any substantive changes in this final rule based on the comments that we received during the public comment period, but we have added or corrected text to clarify the information which we presented. One peer reviewer provided information on hybridization between Modoc suckers and Sacramento suckers (
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. At the time of listing, the Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) were developing an “Action Plan for the Recovery of the Modoc sucker” (Action Plan). The April 27, 1983, Action Plan was formally signed by all participants in 1984 (Service 1984, entire). The Action Plan was revised in 1989 (Service 1989, entire). We determined that the Action Plan and its 1989 revision (Service 1984, 1989) adequately fulfilled the requirements of a recovery plan, and in a 1992 memorandum from the Regional Director (Region 1) to the Service's Director, we adopted it as the recovery plan for the Modoc sucker (“1992 Recovery Plan”; Service 1992) and determined we would not prepare a separate recovery plan pursuant to section 4(f) of the Act.
The 1992 Recovery Plan included downlisting and delisting objectives (considered to be equivalent to criteria). In the February 13, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 8656), we outlined the objectives to reclassify the Modoc sucker from an endangered species to a threatened species and the objectives to remove the Modoc sucker from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and we discussed progress towards meeting the objectives. Please see the February 13, 2014, proposed rule for a detailed discussion of the downlisting and delisting objectives and how they apply to the status of the Modoc sucker. The objectives are summarized below.
Since the time of listing, actions have been taken to maintain or improve Modoc sucker habitat within Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, Washington Creek, and Johnson Creek in support of downlisting objectives 1 and 2. The Service and partners have implemented projects and management that maintain the integrity of extant habitat (downlisting objective 1) and restore and maintain the quality of habitat (downlisting objective 2) via effective stabilization of stream banks, fencing to exclude livestock grazing in riparian areas, restoration of riparian vegetation, and increased instream habitat. On public lands, 1.5 miles (mi) (2.4 kilometers (km)) of Washington Creek, 0.2 mi (0.3 km) of Hulbert Creek, 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of Coffee Mill Creek, and approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) of Turner Creek have been fenced to protect riparian habitat (Reid 2008a, p. 85; M. Yamagiwa, USFS, personal communication). Additionally, since the Modoc sucker was listed in 1985, fencing has been constructed to exclude cattle on Rush Creek and Johnson Creek below Higgins Flat (Modoc National Forest). Fencing led to immediately protecting extant habitat (immediate, near-term), and allowed habitat to recover. This improved the quality and carrying capacity in the long term, thus addressing downlisting objectives 1 and 2. Extensive landowner outreach by the Service, USFS, and State agencies (CDFW, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)), and improved livestock grazing management practices in Modoc and Lassen Counties, have also resulted in improved protection of riparian corridors on private lands in the Turner and Ash Creek sub-basins. Protection of riparian habitat by excluding cattle and by improving livestock grazing management practices on both public and private lands has resulted in improved habitat conditions along these streams as a result of reduced erosion and improved vegetative and hydrologic characteristics (Reid 2008a, pp. 41, 85-86).
Active habitat restoration (downlisting objective 2) has been implemented in many locations throughout the species' range since the species was listed. Restoration on the Modoc National Forest has led to improved habitat conditions in riparian areas along many of the streams occupied by Modoc suckers. Willows have been planted along portions of streams occupied by Modoc suckers in the Turner Creek and Ash Creek sub-basins to stabilize streambanks and provide shading and cover (Reid 2008a, pp. 85-86; USFS 2008, p. 16). As a result of riparian habitat improvements and improved livestock grazing management practices, channel widths have narrowed and created deeper habitat preferred by Modoc suckers (USFS 2008, p. 16). Other habitat restoration activities include juniper revetment (the use of cut juniper trees to stabilize streambanks), creation and expansion of pool habitat, placement of boulders within streams to provide cover and shade, and restoration of channel headcuts (areas of deep erosion) to prevent further downcutting of channels (Reid 2008a, pp. 85-86; USFS 2008, p. 16).
Habitat conditions in designated critical habitat and other occupied streams have steadily improved since listing and have sustained populations of Modoc suckers for at least 25 years, although recent habitat surveys indicate erosion and sedimentation continue to be a problem along lower Turner Creek. However, this degraded reach amounts to only 2.4 percent (1.01 mi (1.63 km)) of the total length (42.5 mi (68.4 km)) of streams occupied by Modoc sucker. Land management practices employed on public and private lands since the early 1980s are expected to continue, or improve, thereby maintaining stable to upward habitat trends. Thus, we have determined that the integrity of extant habitat has been maintained (part of downlisting objective 1) and the quality of habitat has been restored and maintained through restoration efforts (downlisting objective 2), and we conclude that these portions of the downlisting objectives have been met.
While part of downlisting objective 1 was to prevent invasion of Sacramento sucker, further research into the magnitude and consequences of genetic introgression with Sacramento suckers has led us to conclude that this part of the objective is no longer relevant. Observed levels of genetic introgression by Sacramento suckers in streams dominated by Modoc suckers are low (Smith
Several estimates of population size of Modoc suckers in Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, Washington Creek, and Johnson Creek have been completed since the 1970s, and found that Modoc sucker populations have been maintained in the Turner-Hulbert-Washington Creek system and upper Johnson Creek for 3 consecutive years (downlisting objective 3). Modoc suckers appear broadly distributed throughout suitable habitat in these streams. Although the observations during each survey may not be directly comparable due to differences in sampling methods, there does not appear to be any major changes in observations of these stream populations over time. Observations of Modoc suckers in Hulbert Creek and Johnson Creek prior to 2008 appear to be greater than observations made in 2008 and 2012. However, this may be explained by differences in survey methods, inclusion of young-of-the-year suckers in earlier counts, and the fact that some numbers reported are population estimates rather than counts of individuals. Although population monitoring has not been conducted on an annual basis, sucker surveys conducted in 2008 and 2012 show that Modoc sucker populations have been maintained, and are still well-established, in Turner Creek, Washington Creek, Hulbert Creek, and Johnson Creek—as well as in each of the other streams known to be occupied at the time of listing—more than 25 years after listing. Thus, we have determined that populations of Modoc sucker have demonstrated persistence, have had successful recruitment (given that individuals mature at 2+ years), and remain stable over this timeframe. As a result we conclude that downlisting objective 3 has been met.
At the time of listing in 1985, it was estimated that Modoc suckers occupied 2.0 mi (3.2 km) of habitat in Turner Creek, 0.8 mi (1.3 km) of habitat in Hulbert Creek, 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of habitat in Washington Creek, 4.6 mi (7.4 km) in Rush Creek, and 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of habitat in Johnson Creek (Reid 2008a, p. 25) (50 FR 24526). Since the time of listing, Reid (2008a, p. 25) estimated that there was 5.5 mi (8.9 km) of available habitat in Turner Creek, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) in Hulbert Creek, 4.1 mi (6.6 km) in Washington Creek, 4.6 mi (7.4 km) in Rush Creek, and 2.7 mi (4.3 km) in Johnson Creek. Habitat conditions along Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, Washington Creek, and Johnson Creek have improved since the time of listing. Modoc suckers currently occupy all available habitats within Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, Rush Creek, and Johnson Creek; Modoc suckers occupy 3.4 mi (5.5 km) of the available habitat in Washington Creek (Reid 2008a, p. 25). Therefore, we have determined that delisting objective 1, restoring Modoc suckers to unoccupied habitat, has been met.
The 1992 Recovery Plan stated that additional populations were needed to provide population redundancy (delisting objective 2). New information indicates the presence of Modoc sucker populations in four streams that were not known to be occupied at the time of listing (Garden Gulch Creek in the Turner Creek sub-basin; and Thomas Creek, an unnamed tributary to Thomas Creek, and Cox Creek in the Goose Lake sub-basin). In addition, in 1987, CDFW transplanted Modoc suckers from Washington Creek to Coffee Mill Creek to establish an additional population in the Turner Creek sub-basin (CDFW 1986, p. 11). In those four populations, Modoc suckers appear to be well-established and relatively abundant; spawning adult and juvenile suckers have been consistently observed there during visual surveys (Reid 2009, p. 25). Therefore, we have determined that the intent of delisting objective 2 has been met by the discovery of Modoc sucker populations in additional locations and the establishment of one population.
The northwestern corner of the Great Basin where the Modoc sucker occurs is naturally subject to extended droughts, during which even the larger water bodies such as Goose Lake have dried up (Laird 1971, pp. 57-58). Regional droughts have occurred every 10 to 20 years in the last century (Reid 2008a, pp. 43-44). Collections of Modoc suckers from Rush Creek and Thomas Creek near the end of the “dustbowl” drought of the 1920s to 1930s (Hubbs 1934, p. 1; Reid 2008a, p. 79) indicate that the species was able to persist in those streams even through a prolonged and severe drought. Modoc suckers have persisted throughout the species' historical range since the time it was listed in 1985, even though the region has experienced several pronounced droughts as well as heavy-precipitation, high-water years (for example, 2011), indicating that the species is at least somewhat resilient to weather and hydrologic fluctuations. Therefore, we have determined that delisting objective 3 has been met.
The 1992 Recovery Plan was based on the best scientific and commercial information available at the time. In evaluating the extent to which recovery objectives have been met, we must also assess new information that has become available since the species was listed and the 1992 Recovery Plan adopted. As noted above, research and new information since the time of listing and the completion of the 1992 Recovery Plan indicate that hybridization and introgression with Sacramento sucker is not a substantial threat to Modoc suckers. Additionally, Modoc suckers were found occupying areas they were not known to occupy at the time of listing. This new information alters the extent to which the recovery objectives related to hybridization and establishing new populations need to be met. In the case of hybridization and genetic introgression, we find that this objective is no longer relevant given the lack of threat to the species. With regard to the objective to establish new populations, we find that the discovery of additional populations has substantially met the intent of the objective to provide for population redundancy so that reestablishing two additional populations is no longer needed.
Additionally, we have assessed whether the 1992 Recovery Plan adequately addresses all the factors affecting the species. The recovery objectives did not directly address predation by brown trout (
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of any one or a combination of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be reclassified or delisted on the same basis.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of whether the species is endangered or threatened because of the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
A species is an “endangered species” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a “threatened species” if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future.” For the purposes of this rule, we define the “foreseeable future” to be the extent to which, given the amount and substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or reliably extrapolate threat trends, such that we reasonably believe that reliable predictions can be made concerning the future as it relates to the status of Modoc sucker. Specifically, for Modoc sucker, we consider two factors: the management of threats and the response of the species to management. First, as described below, the threats to the species have been successfully ameliorated, largely due to management plans that are currently in place, being fully implemented, expected to stay in place, and expected to successfully continue to control potential threats (USFS 1989, entire; USFS 1991, entire). Management plans that consider natural resources are required by law for all Federal lands on which Modoc sucker occurs, which encompass greater than 50 percent of the species' range. Management plans are required to be in effect at all times and to be in compliance with various Federal regulations. Additionally, efforts to promote conservation of Modoc sucker habitat on private lands have been successful and are expected to continue into the future. Second, the Modoc sucker has demonstrated a quick positive response to management over the past 28 years since the species was listed; based on this, we anticipate being able to detect the species' response to any changes in the management that may occur because of a plan amendment. Therefore, in consideration of Modoc sucker's positive response to management and our partners' commitment to continued management, as we describe below, we do not foresee that management practices will change, and we anticipate that threats to the Modoc sucker will remain ameliorated into the foreseeable future.
The word “range” in the significant portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species currently exists. For the purposes of this analysis, we first evaluate the status of the species throughout all its range, then consider whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in any significant portion of its range.
At the time of listing, the primary threats to Modoc sucker were from habitat degradation and loss due to activities (such as overgrazing by cattle) that cause erosion and siltation, and elimination of natural barriers that resulted in loss of genetic integrity of the species due to hybridization with Sacramento suckers. Predation by the nonnative brown trout was also identified as a threat to Modoc sucker.
A thorough analysis and discussion of the current status of the Modoc sucker and stressors faced by the species is detailed in the Species Report (Service 2015a, entire). The following sections provide a summary of the past, current, and potential future threats impacting the Modoc sucker. These threats include activities (such as overgrazing) that cause erosion and siltation (Factor A); elimination of natural barriers (Factor A); effects of climate change and drought (Factor A); predation by nonnative species (Factors C); and hybridization and genetic introgression (infiltration of genes of another species) (Factor E).
The 1985 listing rule (50 FR 24526; June 11, 1985) stated that activities (such as overgrazing) that cause a reduction in riparian vegetation, which then leads to stream erosion, siltation, and incision, were a threat to the species. An increase in silt from eroding banks may fill in the preferred pool habitat of Modoc suckers and can cover gravel substrate used for spawning (50 FR 24526, June 11, 1985; Moyle 2002, p. 190). Sediment introduced into streams can adversely affect fish populations by inducing embryo mortality, affecting primary productivity, and reducing available habitat for macroinvertebrates that Modoc suckers feed upon (Moyle 2002, p. 191). However, land and resource management, as guided through regulations and policies, can effectively reduce or control threats to Modoc sucker.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600
Management direction for grazing on Forest-managed lands is provided through allotment management plans and permits, which stipulate various grazing strategies that will minimize adverse effects to the watershed and listed species. The allotment management plans outline grazing management goals that dictate rangeland management should maintain productive riparian habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (USFS 1995, p. 1). These grazing permits are valid for 10 years, but operating instructions for these permits are issued on an annual basis. Also, as Federal agencies, the Fremont-Winema and Modoc National Forests comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In California, the California Fish and Game Code affords some protection to stream habitats for all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers and streams by minimizing impacts. In Oregon, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development requires local land use planning ordinances to protect natural resources, including riparian and wetland habitats. In addition to State protections, extensive landowner outreach and improved grazing management practices in Modoc and Lassen Counties have also resulted in improved protection of riparian corridors on private lands.
Improved livestock grazing management practices on Federal, State, and private lands as a result of Federal, State, and private landowner management efforts have greatly reduced impacts to Modoc sucker habitat from poor livestock grazing practices since the Modoc sucker's listing in 1985. Since listing, some of the Modoc sucker streams on public and private land have been fenced to exclude or actively manage livestock grazing for the benefit of Modoc sucker conservation (Reid 2008a, pp. 34-36, 85). Riparian fencing along occupied streams to exclude cattle during the past 25 years has resulted in continued improvements in riparian vegetative corridors, in-stream cover, and channel morphology.
In 2012, the most recent habitat assessment, the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office completed habitat surveys in Washington Creek, Garden Gulch Creek, Coffee Mill Creek, Dutch Flat Creek, Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, and Johnson Creek within the Ash Creek and Turner Creek sub-basins. Data collected indicated that the average percent bank erosion was low (less than 40 percent) at Garden Gulch Creek, Coffee Mill Creek, Hulbert Creek, Washington Creek, and Johnson Creek. Bank erosion appeared moderate at the Dutch Flat Creek site (49 percent) and was highest at the Turner Creek site (75 percent). Bank erosion along these creeks has resulted in an introduction of silt, which can cover gravel substrate used for spawning by Modoc suckers (Moyle 2002, p. 191). However, these two degraded reaches (Dutch Flat Creek and Turner Creek) combined amount to only 4.1 percent (1.76 mi/42.5 mi) of the Modoc sucker's total occupied habitat. These results indicate that management efforts have substantially reduced erosion throughout the range of the species, with the exception of two sites comprising a small percentage of the species' range.
Land management practices employed on public and private lands since the early 1980s are expected to continue, or improve, thereby maintaining upward habitat trends as documented by survey data. On public lands, the resource management plans are required by NFMA and FLPMA, and continue to be in effect until revised. Continued commitment to protection of resources, including the Modoc sucker and riparian areas, in future revisions is expected. As an example, within the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Thomas Creek is a Priority Watershed under their Watershed Condition Framework, and Fremont-Winema National Forest is currently working on a watershed restoration action plan. The action plan will identify individual projects such as fish passage, instream restoration, and road treatments/closures. The California Fish and Game Code affords some protection to stream habitats for all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers and streams in California. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development requires local land use planning ordinances to protect natural resources, including riparian and wetland habitats. There are no formalized agreements in place with private landowners that specifically establish protection of Modoc sucker habitat, although continued outreach and technical assistance, along with other partnerships and management efforts, is expected to continue into the future (
Although the 2012 habitat surveys indicate that livestock grazing still results in stream bank erosion along a small percentage of streams occupied by Modoc suckers, these surveys and the 2008 and 2012 fish surveys indicate that livestock grazing management has improved greatly, and as a result of reduced impact to habitat, there has been no reduction in the distribution of Modoc suckers. Management plans that consider natural resources are required by law for all Federal lands on which Modoc sucker occurs. Management plans are required to be in effect at all times (in other words, if the revision does not occur, the previous plan remains in effect) and to be in compliance with various Federal regulations. Further, several organizations have partnered with private landowners to complete habitat restoration on the private land parcels to benefit fish passage and riparian habitat. Therefore, based on the best available information and expectation that current management practices will continue into the future, we conclude that livestock grazing and erosion do not constitute substantial threats to the Modoc sucker now and are not expected to in the future.
The 1985 listing rule (50 FR 24526; June 11, 1985) stated that natural passage barriers in streams occupied by Modoc suckers had been eliminated by human activities, allowing hybridization between the Modoc and Sacramento suckers (see
The 1985 listing rule (50 FR 24526; June 11, 1985) identified predation by nonnative brown trout as a threat to Modoc suckers. Since the time of listing, the following additional predatory nonnative fish species have been recorded in streams containing Modoc suckers (Service 2009): largemouth bass, sunfish (green and bluegill), and brown bullheads. Two of the three known sub-basins with Modoc suckers contain introduced predatory fishes. The Ash Creek sub-basin contains brown trout and possibly largemouth bass in downstream reaches of Ash Creek. The Turner Creek sub-basin contains a number of warm-water predatory fish. The Goose Lake sub-basin was previously stocked with brook trout (
The Ash Creek sub-basin contains brown trout, which have co-existed with Modoc suckers for over 70 years, but may suppress local native fish populations in small streams. In 2009 and 2010, a substantial eradication effort in Johnson Creek, within the Ash Creek sub-basin, removed most brown trout from occupied Modoc sucker habitat (Reid 2010, p. 2). There are no sources of largemouth bass upstream of Modoc sucker populations in the Ash Creek basin, although they may be present downstream in warmer, low-gradient reaches of Ash Creek proper.
The Turner Creek sub-basin contains largemouth bass, sunfish (green and bluegill), and brown bullheads, of which only the bass are considered a significant predator on Modoc suckers. Bass do not appear to reproduce or establish stable populations in Turner Creek because the creek's cool-water habitat is generally unsuitable for supporting largemouth bass populations. Since 2005, the Service has supported a successful program of active management for nonnative fishes in the Turner Creek basin, targeting bass and sunfishes with selective angling and hand-removal methods that do not adversely impact native fish populations (Reid 2008b, p. 1).
Redband trout (
While Modoc suckers may be negatively impacted by introduced predatory fishes, such as brown trout and largemouth bass, they have persisted in the presence of nonnative predators, and populations have remained relatively stable in the Ash Creek and Turner Creek sub-basins (the two sub-basins with documented nonnative predatory fish), prior to and since the time of listing. The separation of the three known basins containing Modoc suckers further reduces the probability that a new or existing nonnative predator would impact all three basins simultaneously. In some instances, natural constraints, such as cool-water habitat, limit the distribution of nonnative predators. In other cases, natural or manmade barriers limit potential introductions, as do policies and regulations within Oregon and California. State regulations and fish stocking policies, in both California and Oregon, prohibit transfer of fish from one water body to another. Regulations prohibiting transfer of fish between water bodies discourage the spread of predatory fish species such as brown trout and largemouth bass throughout the Modoc sucker's range. In addition, CDFW has discontinued stocking of the predatory brown trout into streams in the Pit River basin, and the ODFW does not stock brown trout in the Goose Lake sub-basin. Based on current policies and regulations, we do not expect additional predatory fish to be introduced into Modoc sucker habitat in the future. Therefore, based on the best available information, we conclude that introduced predators do not constitute a substantial threat to the Modoc sucker now or in the future.
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements (IPCC 2013, p. 1450). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (for example, temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, whether the change is due to natural variability or human activity (IPCC 2013, p. 1450). Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as threats in combination and interactions of climate with other variables (for example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2014, pp. 4-11). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
The 1985 listing rule did not identify the effects of drought or climate change as threats to the continued existence of the Modoc sucker. However, the northwestern corner of the Great Basin is naturally subject to extended droughts, during which streams and even the larger water bodies such as Goose Lake have dried up (Laird 1971, pp. 57-58). Regional droughts have occurred every 10 to 20 years in the last century, and Goose Lake went dry as recently as 1992 and 2010 (Reid 2008a, pp. 43-44; R. Larson, KFFWO, personal communication). We have no records of how frequently Modoc sucker streams went dry. Some reaches of occupied streams have been observed to dry up (or flow goes subsurface through the gravel instead of over the surface) nearly every summer under current climatic conditions (Reid 2008, p. 42), indicating that headwater reaches did stop flowing. In extreme droughts, the suckers may have withdrawn to permanent main-stem streams, such as Rush, Ash, and Turner Creeks, and later recolonized the tributaries. Suckers also take refuge in natural spring-fed headwater reaches and in deeper, headwater pools that receive subsurface flow even when most of the stream channel is dry (Reid 2008, p. 43). Collections of Modoc suckers from Rush Creek and Thomas Creek near the end of the “dustbowl” drought (Hubbs 1934, p. 1; Reid 2008a, p. 79) and the continued persistence of Modoc suckers throughout their known range through substantial local drought years since 1985, including up to the present,
Human-induced climate change could exacerbate low-flow conditions in Modoc sucker habitat during future droughts. A warming trend in the mountains of western North America is expected to decrease snowpack, hasten spring runoff, reduce summer stream flows, and increase summer water temperatures (Poff
In summary, droughts may be a concern because they could likely constrict the amount of available habitat and reduce access to spawning habitat. However, the species has not declined in distribution since the time of listing in 1985, even though during this time the region where the species exists has experienced several pronounced droughts when total annual precipitation was approximately half of the long-term average (Western Regional Climate Center,
The 1985 listing rule (50 FR 24526; June 11, 1985) identified hybridization with the Sacramento sucker as a threat to the Modoc sucker. Hybridization can be cause for concern in a species with restricted distribution, particularly when a closely related, nonnative species is introduced into its range, which can lead to loss of genetic integrity or even extinction (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996, p. 83). At the time of listing, it was assumed that hybridization between Modoc suckers and Sacramento suckers had been prevented in the past by the presence of natural physical barriers, but that the loss of these stream barriers was allowing interaction and hybridization between the two species (see
The morphological evidence for hybridization in the 1985 listing rule was based on a limited understanding of morphological variation in Modoc suckers and Sacramento suckers, derived from the small number of specimens available at that time. The actual number of specimens identified as apparent hybrids by earlier authors was very small, and many of these specimens came from streams without established Modoc sucker populations. Subsequent evaluation of variability in the two species was based on a larger number of specimens. It showed that the overlapping characteristics (primarily lateral line and dorsal ray counts) that had been interpreted by earlier authors as evidence of hybridization are actually part of the natural meristic (involving counts of body parts such as fins and scales) range for the two species. As a result, this variability is no longer thought to be the result of genetic introgression between the two species (Kettratad 2001, pp. 52-53).
In 1999, we initiated a study to examine the genetics of suckers in the Pit River basin and determine the extent and role of hybridization between the Modoc and Sacramento suckers using both nuclear and mitochondrial genes (Palmerston
In a later study, Topinka (2006, p. 50) analyzed nuclear DNA from each of the two species and identified species-specific markers indicating low levels of introgression by Sacramento sucker alleles into most Modoc sucker populations. However, there was no evidence of first generation hybrids, and it is not clear whether introgression occurred due to local hybridization or through immigration by individual Modoc suckers carrying Sacramento alleles from other areas where hybridization had occurred.
Scientists who have studied suckers in western North America consider that, throughout their evolutionary history, hybridization among sympatric native fishes is not unusual and may provide an adaptive advantage (Dowling and Secor 1997, pp. 612-613; Dowling 2005, p. 10; Topinka 2006, p. 73; Tranah and May 2006, p. 313). Further, despite any hybridization that has occurred in the past, the Modoc sucker maintains its morphological and ecological distinctiveness, even in populations showing low levels of introgression, and is clearly distinguishable in its morphological characteristics from the Sacramento sucker (Kettratad 2001, p. 3; Smith
Threats to the Modoc sucker that were considered in the 1985 listing rule (50 FR 24526; June 11, 1985) included habitat loss and degradation, hybridization with Sacramento sucker due to loss of natural barriers, and predation by nonnative brown trout. Climate change, drought, and predation by additional nonnative fish species are threats identified since listing. We summarize our evaluation of these threats below.
In our evaluation of the threat of habitat loss and degradation as a result of land management practices, we find that habitat conditions on both public and private lands have improved since the time of listing as a result of improved livestock grazing management practices and construction of fencing to exclude cattle from riparian areas on several of the streams occupied by Modoc suckers. We expect habitat conditions to remain stable or improve. Although recent habitat surveys indicate erosion continues to be a problem along lower Turner Creek and in Dutch Flat Creek, these areas represent only 4.1 percent (1.76 mi/42.5 mi) of Modoc sucker's total occupied habitat. Habitat threats are addressed through multiple Federal and State regulations, including NFMA, California and Oregon State water regulations, and the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, these impacts are not considered a substantial threat to the species.
We also evaluated whether several introduced nonnative fish species that could be potential predators may be a threat to Modoc suckers. Modoc suckers have coexisted with brown trout for more than 70 years in the Ash Creek sub-basin. For other species, we found that the overlap in distribution of largemouth bass and Modoc suckers is limited because bass are warm-water fish that occur in lower elevation reaches downstream of many of the reaches occupied by Modoc sucker, and reservoir outflows have been screened to reduce the risk of bass being flushed into streams occupied by Modoc sucker. Brook trout occur in a tributary of the Goose Lake sub-basin but do not overlap with the range of the species. Further, State regulations in both California and Oregon prohibit transfer of fish from one water body to another. Thus, introduced predators are not a significant risk to Modoc sucker populations.
We also evaluated new information regarding hybridization of Modoc sucker with Sacramento sucker. As discussed above, a greater understanding of the genetic relationships and natural gene flow between the Modoc sucker and Sacramento sucker has reduced concerns over hybridization between the two naturally sympatric species.
Threats to the Modoc sucker that were considered in the 1985 listing rule, including habitat loss and degradation, hybridization with Sacramento sucker due to loss of natural barriers, and predation by nonnative brown trout, have been reduced or ameliorated, or are no longer considered to have been actual threats at the time of listing. Further, climate change and drought and are not considered substantial threats.
Although none of the factors discussed above is having a major impact on Modoc sucker, a combination of factors could potentially have a greater effect. For example, effects of erosion on habitat resulting from poor livestock grazing management practices could worsen during periods of prolonged, severe drought when some water sources may dry up, resulting in greater pressure from cattle on the remaining available water sources, which would likely degrade Modoc sucker habitat. However, the impacts of livestock grazing on Modoc sucker habitat have been greatly reduced or eliminated by improved grazing management practices and management plans, which are not expected to change. Although the types, magnitude, or extent of cumulative impacts are difficult to predict, we are not aware of any combination of factors that has not already been addressed, or would not be addressed, through ongoing conservation measures. Based on this assessment of factors potentially impacting the species, we consider the Modoc sucker to have no substantial threats now or in the future (see “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species” section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 14-30).
In the proposed rule published on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8656), and in the document reopening the comment period published on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 8053), in the
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the Modoc sucker and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from all three of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the status of the Modoc sucker. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. This information has been incorporated into the final rule or species report as appropriate. The peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of the status of this species and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether the Modoc sucker is
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant, it may drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
Significant impacts at the time of listing (50 FR 24526; June 11, 1985) that could have resulted in the extirpation of all or parts of populations have been eliminated or reduced since listing. We conclude that the previously recognized impacts to Modoc sucker from the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (specifically, erosion due to poor cattle grazing management) (Factor A); elimination of natural barriers (Factor A); predation by nonnative species (Factor C); hybridization or genetic introgression (specifically, from Sacramento sucker) (Factor E); and the effects of drought and climate change (Factor E) do not rise to a level of significance, such that the species is in danger of extinction throughout all its range now or in the foreseeable future.
As a result of the discovery of five populations not known at the time of listing and the documentation of the genetic integrity of populations considered in the 1985 listing rule that were believed to have been lost due to hybridization, the known range of the Modoc sucker has increased, and it currently occupies its entire known historical range. Additionally, the distribution of occupied stream habitat for populations known at the time of listing has remained stable or expanded slightly since the time of listing, even though the region has experienced several droughts during this time period. Additionally, the relevant recovery objectives outlined in the 1992 Recovery Plan have been met, indicating sustainable populations exist throughout the species' range. Finally, our assessment of all potential stressors that may be impacting the species now or in the future did not reveal any significant threats to the species or its habitat. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available and determined that Modoc sucker is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the future.
Having examined the status of Modoc sucker throughout all its range, we next examine whether the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in a significant portion of its range. Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species which is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and “threatened species” as any species which is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither in danger of extinction, nor likely to become so, throughout all of its range, we determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in the SPR. To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”
For the Modoc sucker, we examined whether any of the identified threats acting on the species or its habitat are geographically concentrated to indicate that the species could be endangered or threatened in that area. As stated earlier, we consider the “range” of Modoc sucker to include an estimated 42.5 mi (68.4 km) of occupied habitat in 12 streams in the Turner Creek, Ash Creek, and Goose Lake sub-basins of the Pit River. This distribution represents its entire known historical range, with the exception of Willow Creek within the Ash Creek sub-basin.
We considered whether any portions of the Modoc sucker range might be both significant and in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. To identify whether any portions warrant further consideration, we first determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. One way to identify portions that may be significant would be to identify natural divisions within the range that might be of biological or conservation importance. Modoc sucker inhabit three sub-basins of the Pit River, one of which, the Goose Lake sub-basin, is disjoined from the other two sub-basins (Turner Creek and Ash Creek sub-basins). These sub-basins have the potential to be significant areas to the species due to potential geographic isolation. Although the sub-basins have the potential to be significant, as described above, threats to populations of the species within each of the sub-basins have been ameliorated through restoration and active management as discussed above. Surveys indicate that Modoc sucker populations have been maintained and are well-established and remaining factors that may affect the Modoc sucker occur at similarly low levels throughout each sub-basin. There is no substantial information indicating the species is likely to be threatened or endangered throughout any of the sub-basins. Therefore, these portions, the three sub-basins do not warrant further consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
Another way to identify portions for further consideration would be to consider whether there is substantial information to indicate any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be threatened or endangered in that area. With the exception of erosion at some locations, we have determined that threats have been ameliorated through restoration and active management as discussed above. Some factors may continue to affect Modoc sucker, such as drought, but would do so at uniformly low levels across the species range such that they are unlikely to result in adverse effects to populations of the species and do not represent a concentration of threats that may indicate the species could be threatened or endangered in a particular area. As noted above, erosion due to past poor grazing management still occurs at two sites that make up approximately 4.1 percent of the Modoc sucker range, and has the potential to adversely affect Modoc sucker in those areas. These two areas where erosion is still occurring are within different sub-basins and, both collectively and per sub-basin, represent a very small fraction of the Modoc sucker's range. These areas, individually or collectively, are therefore unlikely to constitute a significant portion of the species' range. No other natural divisions occur, and no other potential remaining threats have been identified that may be likely to cause the species to be threatened or endangered in any particular area. We did not identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened. Therefore, no portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available and determined that the Modoc sucker is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portions of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future. As a consequence of this determination, we are removing this species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after the protections of the Act are removed, by developing a program that detects the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
The Service has developed a final post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan (Service 2015b). In addition, the USFS, CDFW, and ODFW have agreed to partner with us in the implementation of the PDM plan. The PDM plan is designed to verify that the Modoc sucker remains secure from risk of extinction after removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by detecting
A multi-state occupancy approach (MacKenzie
Although the Act has a minimum PDM requirement of 5 years, we will monitor Modoc sucker for a 10-year monitoring period to account for environmental variability (for example, drought) that may affect the condition of habitat and to provide for a sufficient number of surveys to document any changes in the abundance of the species. Based on the life history of the Modoc sucker, in which individuals mature at age 2+ years, a complete survey of previously surveyed areas should be conducted every 2 years within the 10-year monitoring period. This will allow us to assess changes in abundance or the extent of the species' range over time, changes in the level of recruitment of reproducing fish into the population, and any potential changes in threats to the species. However, if a decline in abundance is observed or a substantial new threat arises, PDM may be extended or modified.
After each complete survey (conducted once every 2 years), the Service and its partners will compare the results with those from previous surveys and consider the implication of any observed reductions in abundance or changes in threats to the species. Within 1 year of the end of the PDM period, the Service will conduct a final internal review and prepare (or contract with an outside entity) a final report summarizing the results of monitoring. This report will include: (1) A summary of the results from the surveys of Modoc sucker occupancy, states of abundance, recruitment, and change in distribution; and (2) recommendations for any actions and plans for the future. The final report will include a discussion of whether monitoring should continue beyond the 10-year period for any reason.
The final PDM plan and any future revisions will be available on our national Web site (
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. Two tribes are near the range of the Modoc sucker: The Klamath Tribe and the Pitt River Tribe. The Klamath Tribe does not have an interest in this species, as it does not inhabit their historic reservation lands. We provided the proposed rule to the Pit River Tribe for comment. We received the Pit River Tribe's comments regarding the delisting of the Modoc sucker, and they disagree that the species should be delisted. The Pit River Tribe stated that the Pit River and habitat for the Modoc sucker continues to be degraded. We disagree with the Tribe's comments regarding the habitat for the species. See the
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office in Sacramento, California, in coordination with the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office in Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; apportionment of reserves; request for comments.
NMFS apportions amounts of the non-specified reserve to the initial total allowable catch (ITAC) and total allowable catch (TAC) of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) northern rockfish, BSAI octopus, BSAI sculpins, and BSAI skates in the BSAI management area. This action is necessary to allow the fisheries to continue operating. It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan for the BSAI management area.
Effective December 3, 2015 through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time, December 31, 2015. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., Alaska local time, December 18, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2014-0134 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the (BSAI) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2015 TAC of BSAI northern rockfish was established as 6,263 metric tons (mt), the 2015 TAC of BSAI octopus was established as 400 mt, the 2015 ITAC of BSAI sculpins was established as 3,995 mt, and the 2015 ITAC of BSAI skates was established as 21,845 mt by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and further revisions (80 FR 52204, August 28, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(3) the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has reviewed the most current available data and finds that the ITACs and TACs for BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI octopus, BSAI sculpins, and BSAI skates need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve to promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources in the BSAI and allow fishing operations to continue.
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS apportions from the non-specified reserve of groundfish 1,000 mt to the BSAI northern rockfish TAC, 100 mt to the BSAI octopus TAC, 800 mt to the BSAI sculpins ITAC, and 3,428 mt to the BSAI skates ITAC. These apportionments are consistent with § 679.20(b)(1)(i) and do not result in overfishing of any target species because the revised ITACs and TACs are equal to or less than the specifications of the acceptable biological catch in the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015).
The harvest specification for the 2015 ITACs and TACs included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI are revised as follows: The ITAC and TAC are increased to 7,263 mt for BSAI northern rockfish, 500 mt for BSAI octopuses, 4,795 mt for BSAI sculpins, and 25,273 mt for BSAI skates.
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) and § 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the apportionment of the non-specified reserves of groundfish to the BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI octopus, BSAI sculpins, and BSAI skates ITACS and TACS in the BSAI. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. 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.
Under § 679.20(b)(3)(iii), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action (see
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of Pacific cod from catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using pot gear, American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher processors (C/Ps), and catcher vessels using trawl gear to C/Ps using hook-and-line gear and C/Ps using pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2015 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective December 3, 2015 through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2015.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2015 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI is 16,641 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and reallocations (80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015 and 80 FR 65971, October 28, 2015). The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI will not be able to harvest 3,000 mt of the remaining 2015 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The 2015 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 39,354 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and reallocations (80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015 and 80 FR 65971, October 28, 2015). The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 1,500 mt of the remaining 2015 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The 2015 Pacific cod TAC specified for AFA trawl C/Ps in the BSAI is 4,623 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and reallocations (80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015 and 80 FR 65971, October 28, 2015). The Regional Administrator has determined that AFA trawl C/Ps will not be able to harvest 800 mt of the remaining 2015 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A) and § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), NMFS reallocates 5,300 mt of Pacific cod to C/Ps using hook-and-line gear and C/Ps using pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area.
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015, 80 FR 51757, August 26, 2015, 80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015 and 80 FR 65971, October 28, 2015) are revised as follows: 13,641 mt for catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear, 37,854 mt for catcher vessels using trawl gear, 3,823 mt to AFA trawl C/Ps, 115,371 mt for C/Ps using hook-and-line, and 6,829 mt for C/Ps using pot gear.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from multiple sectors to C/Ps using hook-and-line gear and C/Ps using pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 1, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of proposed rule; request for public comment.
This proposed regulation would allow Community Forest and Open Space Program (Community Forest Program) grant recipients to issue conservation easements to funding entities and, in some circumstances consistent with the program's purposes, convey community forest land to other eligible entities. The proposed regulation would also clarify definitions of program-specific terms, streamline the application process, and implement Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Agriculture's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR parts 200 and 400).
Comments on this proposed regulation must be received in writing by March 7, 2016.
Send written comments to USDA, Forest Service, Attention: Maya Solomon, Cooperative Forestry Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC. 202-205-1376. Electronic comments may be sent to
Comments concerning the information collection requirements contained in this action should reference OMB No. 0596-0227. Comments should be sent to the address listed in the above paragraph.
All comments, including provided names and addresses, will be placed in the record and made available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on this proposed rule in the Cooperative Forestry Office, State & Private Forestry Deputy Area, Yates Building-Third Floor, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Visitors must call (202) 205-1376 to facilitate building entry.
Maya Solomon, Program Specialist, State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Forestry Staff, (202) 205-1376. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The Community Forest Program is authorized by Section 8003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246; 122 Stat. 1651). On October 20, 2011, the Forest Service issued regulations (36 CFR 230 Subpart A) implementing the program. After selecting and awarding the first round of grants under the current version of 36 CFR 230 Subpart A, the Agency identified some inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the regulation that hinder the Agency's ability to efficiently and effectively implement the program.
One of the critical inconsistencies is found in Section 230.8, which specifies the acquisition requirements for this program. Subpart 230.8(a) (5) lists the documents and statements that must be recorded with the deed as part of the Notice of Grant Requirement. It states that, “. . .the grant recipient will not convey or encumber the interest in real property, in whole or in part, to another party. . .”. This language is more restrictive than necessary and is inconsistent with the grant assurances (OPM Form 424D), which allow a grant recipient to convey or encumber an interest in real property with prior approval from the granting Agency. Furthermore, the restrictive language prevents eligible entities from using funding mechanisms that require establishment of a conservation easement, even though this arrangement could be compatible with Community Forest Program requirements. This provision also prevents the transfer of ownership interest in a Community Forest to another eligible entity if the original owner becomes unable to hold or maintain the parcel. This proposed regulation is designed to allow Community Forest Program grant recipients to grant conservation easements to funding entities, and, in some circumstances, to convey land to another eligible entity when consistent with the program's purposes.
Additionally, the Agency seeks to reduce the burden of paperwork and information collections on applicants. Currently, the Agency requests an eight-page application, a map of the parcel in question, all forms required for issuance of a federal grant, and a draft community forest plan. The current application process is overly burdensome and all elements of the process are not necessary to ensure the selection of high-quality community forest projects that meet the intent of the program.
The Agency also seeks to clarify definitions and refine provisions regarding the use of technical assistance funds. The language clarifies how technical assistance should be determined and requested. Some of the definitions in the current regulation are unclear and confuse the intent of the program. The Agency seeks to provide clarification and reduce the amount of confusion caused by the unclear definitions.
Lastly, the Agency is eliminating the separate cost share and grant requirements for non-profit organizations, Tribal governments, and local governments in ((§§ 230.6(c) and 230.7(a)(2)). The Agency will follow the guidance outlined in the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR parts 200 and 400) for all eligible entities.
The changes made to the current version of this rule will apply to new grants as well as grants awarded prior to the issuance of this rule.
The Forest Service is revising this regulation to correct inconsistencies and inefficiencies identified in administrating the first round of grants, to clarify confusing language, reduce the paperwork collection burden for
Project grants are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and must comply with the Agency's NEPA implementing procedures as described in 36 CFR part 220, as well as the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA procedures at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. Community Forest Program grants are used to transfer title of private lands to third parties and will not fund any ground-disturbing activities. The Forest Service has concluded that Community Forest Program grants fall under the categorical exclusion provided in the Forest Service's NEPA procedures for “acquisition of land or interest in land” 36 CFR part 220.6(d)(6); 73 FR 43084 (July 24, 2008). As a result, Community Forest Program project grants are excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement.
The changes made to the current version of this rule will apply to new grants as well as grants awarded prior to the issuance of this rule.
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 (“Uniform Act”) (42 U.S.C. 4601,
Section 7A(c)(4) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (16 U.S.C. 2103d(c)(4)), requires that land acquired under Community Forest Program be appraised in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Federal Appraisal Standards) in order to determine the non-Federal cost share of a parcel of privately-owned forest land. The Federal Appraisal Standards are contained in a readily available public document, (
This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866. The OMB has determined that this proposed rule is non-significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule does not regulate the private use of land or the conduct of business. It is a grant program for local governments, Tribal Governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations for purposes of acquiring land for resource conservation and open space preservation. By providing funding to eligible entities for land acquisition, the Federal Government will promote the non-monetary benefits of sustainable forest management. These benefits include: improved air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, forest-based educational programs including vocational education programs in forestry, replicable models of effective forest stewardship for private landowners, open space preservation, carbon sequestration, and enhanced recreational opportunities including hunting and fishing.
This proposed rule has been considered in light of Executive Order 13272 regarding regulatory impacts on small entities and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Voluntary participation in the Community Forest Program does not impose significant direct costs on small entities. This proposed rule imposes no additional requirements on the affected public. Entities most likely affected by this proposed rule are the local governments, qualified nonprofit organizations, and Tribal governments eligible to receive a grant through Community Forest Program. The minimum requirements imposed on small entities by this proposed rule are necessary to protect the public interest and should be within the capabilities of small entities to perform; they should not be administratively burdensome or costly to meet. The proposed rule would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of program participants. It does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or Indian Tribal government, or anyone in the private sector. Under these circumstances, the Forest Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Agency has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and Indian Tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or Indian Tribal governments, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of that Act is not required.
The Forest Service has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and Executive Order 12875, Government Partnerships. The Forest Service has determined that the rule conforms to the federalism principles set out in these Executive Orders. The rule would not impose any compliance costs on the States or Tribal governments other than those imposed by statute, and would not have substantial direct effects on the States or Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Based on comments received on this proposed rule, the Agency will consider if any additional consultations will be needed with the State, local governments, and/or Tribal governments prior to adopting a final rule.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-
(1) Determine that the applicant is eligible to receive funds under the program,
(2) Determine if the proposal meets the qualifications in the statute and regulations,
(3) Evaluate and rank the proposals based on standard, consistent information, and
(4) Determine if the project's costs are allowable and sufficient cost share is provided.
Local governmental entities, Tribal Governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations are the only entities eligible for the program and therefore are the only organizations from which information will be collected.
The information collection currently required for a request for proposals and grant application is approved and has been assigned the OMB Control No. 0596-0227.
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This proposed rule has tribal implications as defined in Executive Order 13175. Section 7A (a)(1) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act establishes that federally recognized Indian tribes are eligible to participate in the Community Forest Program. In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); the Executive Order of November 6, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” (EO 13175); and with the directives of the Department of Agriculture (DR 1350-001); we have determined that this proposed rule may affect Indian Tribes. Tribal consultation will be coordinated through local and regional processes in coordination with the Washington Office of the Forest Service.
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630 and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose the risk of a taking of constitutionally-protected private property. This proposed rule implements a program to assist eligible entities in acquiring land from willing sellers. Any land use restrictions on Community Forest Program parcels are agreed to voluntarily by program participants.
This proposed rule outlines processes for implementation of the Community Forest Program. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions” from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The Department's preliminary assessment is that this proposed regulation falls within this category of actions, and that no extraordinary circumstances require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made before publication of the final rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Forest Service has not identified any State or local laws or regulations that are in conflict with this proposed rule or that would impede full implementation of this proposed rule. Nevertheless, in the event that such a conflict is identified, the proposed rule would not preempt the State or local laws or regulations found to be in conflict. However, in that case, no retroactive effect would be given to this rule and the Forest Service would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties could file suit in court challenging its provisions.
Grant programs, Grants administration, State and local governments, Tribal governments, Nonprofit organizations, Conservation, Forests and forest products, Land sales.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service proposes to amend part 230 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 2109.
(a) The regulations of this subpart govern the rules and procedures for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (Community Forest Program), established under Section 7A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d). Under the Community Forest Program, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, awards grants to local governments, Indian tribes, and qualified nonprofit organizations to establish community forests for community benefits by acquiring and protecting private forestlands.
(b) The Community Forest Program applies to eligible entities within any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the territories and possessions of the United States.
The terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
(1) Economic benefits such as timber and non-timber products resulting from sustainable forest management and tourism;
(2) Environmental benefits, including clean air and water, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources;
(3) Benefits from forest-based experiential learning, including K-12 conservation education programs; vocational education programs in disciplines such as forestry and environmental biology; and environmental education through individual study or voluntary participation in programs offered by organizations such as 4-H, Boy or Girl Scouts, Master Gardeners, etc.;
(4) Benefits from serving as replicable models of effective forest stewardship for private landowners; and
(5) Recreational benefits such as hiking, hunting, and fishing secured with public access.
(1) A description of all purchased tracts and cost share tracts, including acreage and county location, land use, forest type and vegetation cover;
(2) Objectives for the community forest and strategies to implement those objectives;
(3) A description of the long-term use and management of the property;
(4) Community benefits to be achieved from the establishment of the community forest;
(5) A description of ongoing activities that promote community involvement in the development and implementation of the Community Forest Plan;
(6) Plans for the utilization or demolition of existing structures and proposed needs for further improvements;
(7) A description of public access and the rationale for any limitations on public access, such as protection of cultural or natural resources or public health and safety concerns; and
(8) Maps of sufficient scale to show the location of the property in relation to roads, communities, and other improvements as well as nearby parks, refuges, or other protected lands and any additional maps required to display planned management activities.
(1) Local governmental entity. Any municipal government, county government, or other local government body with jurisdiction over local land use decisions as defined by Federal or State law.
(2) Indian tribe. Defined by Section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b); for the purpose of this rule, this includes federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations.
(3) Qualified nonprofit organization. An organization that is described in Section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 170(h)(3)) and operates in accordance with one or more of the conservation purposes specified in Section 170(h)(4)(A) of that Code (26 U.S.C. 170(h)(4)(A)). Conservation purposes include:
(i) The preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by, or for the education of, the general public,
(ii) The protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem,
(iii) The preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land) where such preservation is for the scenic enjoyment of the general public or pursuant to a clearly delineated Federal, State, or local governmental conservation policy, and will yield a significant public benefit, or
(iv) The preservation of a historically important land area or a certified historic structure.
(1) Are threatened by conversion to nonforest uses;
(2) Are not lands held in trust by the United States, including Indian reservations and allotment land,
(3) Can provide defined community benefits under the Community Forest Program and allow public access if acquired by an eligible entity.
(1) Compatible nonforest uses that may be compatible with a community forest as part of an undeveloped landscape may include:
(i) Cultivated farmland, pasture, grassland, shrubland, open water, and wetlands;
(ii) Low-impact structures or facilities that support the purposes of the community forest and the Community Forest Program, such as recreational facilities, trails, concession and educational kiosks, energy development for onsite use, facilities associated with appropriate forest management, and parking areas.
(2) Incompatible nonforest uses are activities that threaten forest cover and are inconsistent with the Community Forest Plan. These uses may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Subdivision;
(ii) Residential development, except for a caretaker building;
(iii) Mining and nonrenewable resource extraction, except for activities that would not require surface disturbance of the community forest such as directional drilling for oil and gas development or onsite use of gravel from existing gravel pits;
(iv) Industrial use, including the manufacturing of products;
(v) Commercial use, except for sustainable timber or other renewable resources, and limited compatible commercial activities to support cultural, recreational and educational use of the community forest by the public; and
(vi) Structures, facilities, or organized, continuous, or recurring activities that disturb or compact the surface and/or impact forest and water resources in a manner that threatens the benefits and objectives of the community forest.
(a) The Forest Service will issue a national request for applications (RFA) for grants under the Community Forest Program. The RFA will be posted to
(1) The process and timeline for submitting an application;
(2) Application requirements (§ 230.4);
(3) Review process and criteria that will be used by the Forest Service (§ 230.5); and
(4) Additional information as the Forest Service determines appropriate.
(b) Pursuant to the RFA, interested eligible entities will submit an application for program participation to:
(1) The State Forester or equivalent official, for local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations, or
(2) The equivalent officials of the Indian tribe, for applications submitted by an Indian tribe.
(c) Interested eligible entities will also notify the Forest Service, official identified in the RFA, when submitting an application to the State Forester or equivalent officials of the Indian tribe.
(d) The State Forester or equivalent official of the Indian tribe will forward all applications to the Forest Service and, as time and resources allow, provide a review of each application to help the Forest Service determine:
(1) That the applicant is an eligible entity;
(2) That the land is eligible;
(3) That the proposed project has not been submitted for funding consideration under the Forest Legacy Program; and
(4) Whether the project contributes to a landscape conservation initiative.
(e) If an applicant seeks technical assistance from the State Forester, nontribal applicants should contact the State Forester to discuss what technical assistance is needed and confirm that the State Forester is willing to provide that assistance. Tribal applicants should work with their equivalent officials (as defined in § 230.2) to discuss and arrange similar technical assistance needs. Applicants must include a separate budget that outlines the financial needs associated with technical assistance activities (§ 230.10).
(f) A proposed application cannot be submitted for funding consideration simultaneously for both the Community Forest Program and the Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program (16 U.S.C. 2103c).
An application must include:
(a) Documentation verifying that the applicant is an eligible entity and that the proposed acquisition is of eligible lands.
(b) Details of the property proposed for acquisition:
(1) A description of the property, including acreage and county location;
(2) A description of current land uses, including improvements and plans for utilization or demolition of existing structures;
(3) A description of forest type and vegetative cover;
(4) A map of sufficient scale to show the location of the property in relation to roads and other improvements as well as parks, refuges, or other protected lands in the vicinity;
(5) A description of applicable zoning and other land use regulations affecting the property;
(6) Relationship of the property within and its contributions to a landscape conservation initiative; and
(7) A description of any threats of conversion to nonforest uses.
(c) Information regarding the proposed establishment of a community forest, including:
(1) Objectives of the community forest;
(2) A description of the benefiting community, including demographics, and the associated benefits provided by the proposed land acquisition;
(3) A description of the community involvement to date in the planning of the community forest and of the community involvement anticipated in its long-term management;
(4) Description of the planned public access and the rationale for any proposed limitations such as protection of cultural or natural resources, or public health and safety concerns; and
(5) An identification of persons and organizations that support the project and their specific role in acquiring the land and establishing and managing the community forest.
(6) If the project is within the designated boundary of a federal management unit, a letter of support for the project from the federal land manager.
(7) A description of the resources that will be used to maintain and manage the property as a community forest in perpetuity.
(d) Information regarding the proposed land acquisition, including:
(1) A proposed project budget including a table and/or narrative detailing the source/type of non-federal cost share and all allowable expenses associated with the project (§ 230.6)
(2) Requests for State Forester, or equivalent official of Indian tribes, technical assistance in Community Forest Plan preparation should be listed separately in the budget, along with their estimated costs of providing assistance (§ 230.10);
(3) The status of due diligence, as documented by a signed option or purchase and sale agreement, title search, minerals determination, and appraisal;
(4) Description and status of cost share (secure, pending, commitment letter, etc.) (§ 230.6);
(5) The status of negotiations with participating landowner(s) including purchase options, contracts, and other terms and conditions of sale;
(6) The proposed timeline for completing the acquisition and establishing the community forest; and
(7) Long term management costs and funding source(s).
(e) Applications must comply with the Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations (2 CFR parts 200 and 400).
The Forest Service will evaluate all applications received by the State Foresters or equivalent officials of the Indian tribes and award grants based on the following criteria:
(a) Type and extent of community benefits
(b) Extent and nature of community engagement in the establishment and long-term management of the community forest;
(c) Extent to which the community forest contributes to a landscape conservation initiative;
(d) Likelihood that, if unprotected, the property would be converted to nonforest uses;
(e) Amount and proportion of cost share leveraged;
(f) Extent of due diligence completed on the project, including cost share committed and status of appraisal;
(g) Costs to the Federal government; and
(h) Additional considerations as may be outlined in the RFA.
(a) The Community Forest Program federal contribution cannot exceed 50 percent of the total project costs.
(b) Allowable project and cost share costs will include the purchase price and the following transactional costs associated with the acquisition:
(1) Appraisals and appraisal reviews;
(2) Land surveys;
(3) Legal and closing costs;
(4) Development of the Community Forest Plan; and
(5) Title examination.
(c) The principles and procedures for determining allowable costs for grants are outlined in 2 CFR part 400, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements.
(d) Allowable project costs do not include the following:
(1) Long-term operations, maintenance, and management of the land;
(2) Construction of buildings or recreational facilities;
(3) Research;
(4) Existing liens or taxes owed; and
(5) Costs associated with preparation of the application, except any allowable project costs specified in § 230.6(b) completed as part of the application.
(e) Cost share contributions can include cash, in-kind services, or donations and must:
(1) Be supported by grant regulations described above;
(2) Not include other Federal funds unless specifically authorized by Federal statute;
(3) Not include non-Federal funds used as cost share for other Federal programs;
(4) Not include funds used to satisfy mandatory or compensatory mitigation requirements under a Federal regulation, such as the Clean Water Act, the River and Harbor Act, or the Endangered Species Act;
(5) Not include borrowed funds, as defined in § 230.2; and
(6) Be accomplished within the grant period.
(f) Cost share contributions may include the purchase or donation of other lands located within the community forest as long as it is provided by an eligible entity and legally dedicated to perpetual land conservation consistent with Community Forest Program and community forest objectives; such donations need to meet the acquisition requirements specified under § 230.8 (a) (1)(ii).
(g) For purposes of calculating the cost share contribution, the grant recipient may request inclusion of project due diligence costs, such as title review and appraisals, incurred prior to issuance of the grant. These pre-award costs may have been incurred up to one year prior to the issuance of the grant, but cannot include the purchase of Community Forest Program land, including cost share tracts.
(a) Once an application is selected, funding will be obligated to the grant recipient through a grant.
(1) The following grant forms and supporting materials must be completed after project selection in order to receive the grant:
(i) An Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);
(ii) Budget information (Standard Form 424c—Construction Programs);
(iii) Assurances of compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies (Standard Form 424d— Construction Programs); and
(iv) Additional forms, as may be required to award the grant.
(2) The grant paperwork must adhere to the requirements outlined in 2 CFR parts 200 and 400, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
(b) The initial grant period will be two years, and acquisition of lands should occur within that timeframe. The grant may be reasonably extended by the Forest Service when necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances in the land acquisition process.
(c) The Forest Service must approve any amendment to a proposal or request to reallocate funding within a grant proposal.
(d) The grant recipient must comply with the requirements in § 230.8(a) of this subpart before funds will be released.
(e) After the grant has closed, grant recipients must provide the Forest Service with a Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile: a digital, vector-based storage format for storing geometric location and associated attribute information, of Community Forest Program project tracts and cost share tracts, if applicable.
(f) Any funds not expended within the grant period must be de-obligated and revert to the Forest Service for redistribution.
(g) All media, press, signage, and other documents discussing the creation of the community forest must reference the partnership and financial assistance by the Forest Service through the Community Forest Program.
(a) Prior to closing on an acquisition, grant recipients participating in the Community Forest Program must complete the following, which applies to all tracts, including cost share tracts:
(1) Complete an appraisal:
(i) For lands purchased with Community Forest Program funds, the appraisal must comply with Federal Appraisal Standards prior to the release of the grant funds. The grant recipient must provide documentation that the appraisal and associated appraisal review were conducted in a manner consistent with the Federal appraisal standards.
(ii) For donated cost share tracts, the market value must be determined by an independent appraiser. The value needs to be documented by a responsible official of the party to which the property is donated.
(2) Notify the landowner in writing of the appraised value of the property and that the sale is voluntary. If the grant recipient has a voluntary option for less than appraised value, they do not have to renegotiate the agreement.
(3) Purchase all surface and subsurface mineral rights whenever possible. However, if severed mineral
(4) Ensure that title to lands acquired conforms to title standards applicable to State land acquisitions where the land is located:
(i) Title to lands acquired using Community Forest Program funds must not be subject to encumbrances or agreements of any kind that would be contrary to the purpose of the Community Forest Program.
(ii) Title insurance must not be a substitute for acceptable title.
(5) The grant recipient must provide all necessary due diligence documentation to regional Forest Service program managers and allow at least 60 days for review and acceptance.
(b) At closing, record a Notice of Grant Requirement with the deed in the lands record of the local county or municipality. This document must:
(1) State that the property (including cost share tracts) was purchased with Community Forest Program funds;
(2) Provide a legal description;
(3) Identify the name and address of the grant recipient who is the authorized title holder;
(4) State the purpose of the Community Forest Program;
(5) Reference the Grant Agreement with the Forest Service (title and agreement number) and the address where it is kept on file;
(6) State that the grant recipient confirms its obligation to manage the interest in real property pursuant to the grant, the Community Forest Plan, and the purpose of the Community Forest Program;
(7) State that the Community Forest may not be sold and will not be conveyed or transferred to another eligible entity or encumbered in whole or in part, to another party without prior written permission and instructions from the Forest Service and when consistent with the purposes of the Community Forest Program; and
(8) State that the grant recipient will manage the interest in real property consistent with the purpose of the Community Forest Program.
(a) Grant recipients shall submit a final Community Forest Plan for Forest Service review within 120 days of the land acquisition and update the plan periodically to guide the management and use of the community forest.
(1) Grantees are encouraged to work with their State Forester or equivalent official of their Indian tribe for technical assistance when developing or updating the Community Forest Plan. In addition, eligible entities are encouraged to work with technical specialists such as professional foresters, recreation specialists, wildlife biologists, and outdoor education specialists when developing Community Forest Plans.
(2) Reserved.
(b) Grant recipients shall provide public access in accordance with the Community Forest Plan.
(c) Recipients must manage the property in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Community Forest Program. In the event that a grant recipient sells or converts a parcel of land acquired under the Community Forest Program to nonforest uses or any use inconsistent with the purposes of the Community Forest Program, the grant recipient shall:
(1) Pay the United States an amount equal to the current sale price or the current appraised value of the parcel, whichever is greater. For the purposes of this calculation, the parcel's appraised value will be the parcel's full fair market value. The impact of subsequent encumbrances, such as the imposition of conservation easements consistent with the purposes of this program, will not be considered in appraising the parcel's fair market value; and
(2) Not be eligible for additional grants under the Community Forest Program.
(d) For Indian tribes, land acquired using a grant provided under the Community Forest Program must not be sold, converted to nonforest uses or a use inconsistent with the purpose of the Community Forest Program, or converted to land held in trust by the United States on behalf of any Indian tribe.
(e) Every five years, grant recipients shall submit a self-certifying statement to the regional Forest Service Program Manager confirming that the property has not been sold or converted to nonforest uses or a use inconsistent with the purpose of the Community Forest Program.
(f) Grant recipients are subject to periodic spot checks conducted by the Forest Service to verify that property acquired under the Community Forest Program has not been sold or converted to nonforest uses or any use inconsistent with the purpose of the Community Forest Program and that the current Community Forest Plan complies with defined minimum requirements in § 230.2.
Community Forest Program technical assistance funds may be provided to State Foresters or equivalent officials of Indian tribes through an administrative grant to help implement projects funded through the Community Forest Program. These funds are separate from the project funds and do not have a cost share requirement. Section 7A (f) of the authorizing statute limits the funds allocated to State Foresters or equivalent officials of Indian tribes for program administration and technical assistance to no more than 10% of all funds made available to carry out the program for each fiscal year. Funds will only be provided to States or Indian tribes that:
(a) Have a Community Forest Program project funded within their jurisdiction, and
(b) Indicate the financial need and purpose of technical assistance in their Community Forest Program application.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing coating operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by January 7, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0690 at
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD Rule 1151,“Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations,” and YSAQMD Rule 2.26, “Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations”. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). This revision describes actions that PCAPCD will take to prevent air pollution concentrations from reaching dangerously high levels.
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by January 7, 2016.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0689, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portions of
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by January 7, 2016.
Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0619, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local rules: AVAQMD Rule 1113 “Architectural Coatings,” FRAQMD Rule 3.15 “Architectural Coatings,” SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 “Architectural Coatings,” SCAPCD Rule 3.15 “Architectural Coatings,” and YCAPCD Rule 3.15 “Architectural Coatings.” In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our determination that maize designated as event MON 87403, which has been genetically engineered for increased ear biomass, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by Monsanto Company in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous notices announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no significant impact.
Effective December 8, 2015.
You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the comments we received at
Supporting documents are also available on the APHIS Web site at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 14-213-01p) from Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of maize (
According to our process
APHIS received 20 comments on the petition. Issues raised during the comment period include the contamination of conventional crop production, the potential for disruption of trade due to the presence of unwanted genetically engineered commodities in exports, the potential for negative impacts on plant fitness and the environment, and health concerns. APHIS decided, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of the comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues. According to our public review process for such petitions (see footnote 1), APHIS is following Approach 2 where we first solicit written comments from the public on a draft environmental assessment (EA) and a preliminary plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a
APHIS sought public comment on a draft EA and a preliminary PPRA from July 21, 2015, to August 20, 2015.
After reviewing and evaluating the comments received during the comment period on the draft EA and preliminary PPRA and other information, APHIS has prepared a final EA. The EA has been prepared to provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status of maize designated as event MON 87403. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by Monsanto, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, the PPRA, comments provided by the public, and information provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that maize designated as event MON 87403 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore are no longer subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.
Copies of the signed determination document, PPRA, final EA, FONSI, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has reached a preliminary decision to extend our determination of nonregulated status of Innate
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 7, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The J.R. Simplot Company extension request, our preliminary finding of no significant impact, our similarity assessment, our preliminary determination, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Supporting documents and any comments we received regarding our determination of nonregulated status of the antecedent organisms (Innate
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.
In a notice
As described in the extension request, V11 potato has been genetically engineered through the insertion of genetic elements from potato or wild potato (a group of related plant species that are sexually compatible with potato) using Simplot's Innate
In section 403 of the PPA, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS completed a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) and an environmental assessment (EA) for the antecedent organisms. Based on those assessments, we concluded that the antecedent organisms are unlikely to present a plant pest risk. V11 potato expresses the same low acrylamide potential and reduced black spot bruise prevalence as the antecedent potatoes. Therefore, based on our PPRA for the antecedents and the similarity between V11 potato and the antecedents, APHIS has concluded that V11 potato is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.
The EA for the antecedent organisms was prepared using data submitted by Simplot, a review of other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. The EA was prepared to provide the APHIS decisionmaker with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed determination of nonregulated status of the antecedent potatoes. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on the similarity of V11 potato to the antecedent potatoes, APHIS has prepared a preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on V11 potato using the EA prepared for Innate
APHIS has carefully examined the existing NEPA documentation completed for Innate
Based on APHIS' analysis of information submitted by Simplot, references provided in the extension request, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, and the similarity of V11 potato to the antecedent organisms, APHIS has determined that V11 potato is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have therefore reached a preliminary decision to approve the request to extend the determination of nonregulated status of Innate
Paragraph (e) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
APHIS will accept written comments on the FONSI regarding a determination of nonregulated status of V11 potato for a period of 30 days from the date this notice is published in the
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. All comments will be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 7, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's (RBS) intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection in support of the Intermediary Relending Program (IRP).
Comments on this notice must be received by February 8, 2016, to be assured of consideration.
Lori Hood, Specialty Programs Division, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3226, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Telephone (202) 720-9815, Email
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Brigitte Sumter, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0042.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of RBS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 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. Comments may be sent to Brigitte Sumter, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, January 28, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. CST for the purpose of hearing testimony regard the civil rights impact of the State's 2013 Secure and Fair Elections (S.A.F.E.) Act.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, January 28, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. at the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library, located at 1515 SW 10th Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66604. This meeting is free and open to the public. Parking will available at the event free of charge. Individuals with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations should contact the Midwest Regional Office a minimum of ten days prior to the meeting to request appropriate arrangements.
Of concern to the Committee is the potential for voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements as outlined in the S.A.F.E. Act to prevent citizens from exercising their right to vote—in particular that these requirements may result in a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, age, religion, or disability.
Members of the public are invited and welcomed to make statements during the open forum period beginning at 4:30 p.m. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days after the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 28, 2015, from 9:15 a.m.-5:00 p.m. CST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/ITA-1, Individuals Identified in Export Transactions.
The Department of Commerce publishes this notice to announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled Notice of Proposed Amendment to COMMERCE/ITA-1, Individuals Identified in Export Transactions.
The system of records becomes effective on December 8, 2015.
For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to the: Privacy Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 6622, Washington, DC 20230.
Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 6622, Washington, DC 20230.
On October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63737), the Department of Commerce published a notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6430.
On October 20, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated a countervailing duty investigation on welded stainless pressure pipe from India.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.
On November 24, 2015, Petitioners
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (“NWRs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Effective Date: December 8, 2015.
William Horn or Robert Galantucci, 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) 482-2615 or (202) 482-2923, respectively.
On September 17, 2010, the Department published the antidumping duty orders on NWRs from the PRC and Taiwan, as amended.
The merchandise subject to these
The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
All issues raised in these sunset reviews are addressed in the Decision
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
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 circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Effective date: December 8, 2015.
Jennifer Meek, Lana Nigro, or Joseph Shuler, 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) 482-2778, (202) 482-1779 or (202) 482-1293, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. The product is currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
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, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
For Husteel, HYSCO, and SeAH, upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Husteel, HYSCO, and SeAH reported the name of the importer of record and the entered value for all of their sales to the United States during the POR. If Husteel's, HYSCO's, and SeAH's weighted-average dumping margins are not zero or
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or
The Department's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Husteel, HYSCO, and SeAH for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this practice,
For Husteel, HYSCO, and SeAH, we intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of CWP from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Husteel, HYSCO, and SeAH will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer has been covered in a prior complete segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 4.80 percent, the “all others” rate established in the order.
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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482-3874 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)), David Crespo at (202) 482-3693 (Mexico), or Rebecca Trainor at (202) 482-4007 (the Republic of Turkey (Turkey)); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230.
On August 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated antidumping duty investigations of imports of heavy walled rectangular carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWR pipes and tubes) from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey.
On November 30, 2015, Atlas Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group; Bull Moose Tube Company; EXLTUBE; Hannibal Industries, Inc.; Independence Tube Corporation; Maruichi American Corporation; Searing Industries; Southland Tube; and Vest, Inc., U.S. producers on whose behalf the petitions in these cases were filed (hereafter, the petitioners) made timely requests, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determinations in the investigations.
Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if a petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the preliminary determination must be made under subsection (b)(1), then the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination under subsection (b)(1) until not later than the 190th day after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioners' requests, the Department is postponing the preliminary determinations in these investigations until Februrary 16, 2016, which is 190 days from the date on which the Department initiated these investigations.
The deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless extended.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is partially rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from India for the period of review (POR) May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015.
Effective Date: December 8, 2015.
David Lindgren, Office VII, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3870.
On May 1, 2015, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from India for the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested the review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioners' August 25, 2015 withdrawal request was submitted within the 90-day period and thus is timely. Because Petitioners' withdrawal of their requests for review is timely and because no other party requested a review of Nava, we are rescinding this review with respect to this company, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). As the request for an administrative review for Nava was the only request withdrawn, the instant review will continue with respect to Universal.
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Nava, the company for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to eight existing Federal Advisory Committees: Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee, and Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committees, in addition to nominations already received. Registered Federal lobbyists may not serve on NIST Federal Advisory Committees.
Nominations for all committees will be accepted on an ongoing basis and will be considered as and when vacancies arise.
See below.
Please submit nominations to Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary, may be found at
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and Designated Federal Officer, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-4781; fax 301-975-4967; or via email at
The Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award). The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary.
2. The Board shall make an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of NIST, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.
3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Board will consist of approximately twelve members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance excellence. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Board will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, health care providers, and educational institutions. Members will also be chosen who have broad experience in for-profit and nonprofit areas.
2. Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms and will serve at the
1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Board will meet annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are usually one day in duration. Historically, the Board has met twice per year.
3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.
1. Nominations are sought from the private and public sector as described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, educational institutions, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership.
Please submit nominations to Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary, may be found at
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and Designated Federal Officer, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-4781; fax 301-975-4967; or via email at
The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Panel) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) selection process. Based on a review of results of examiners' scoring of written applications, Panel members will vote on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants. The Panel will also review recommendations from site visits, and recommend Award recipients.
2. The Panel will ensure that individual judges will not participate in the review of applicants as to which they have any potential conflict of interest.
3. The Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Panel will consist of approximately nine, and not more than twelve, members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Panel will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, health care providers, and educational institutions. Members will also be chosen who have broad experience in for-profit and nonprofit areas.
2. Panel members will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.
1. Members of the Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Panel will meet three times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are usually one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course.
3. When approved by the Department of Commerce Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Panel meetings are closed or partially closed to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, health care, and nonprofits as described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, health care providers, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Panel duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the
Please submit nominations to Annie Sokol, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-8670, Attn: ISPAB Nominations. Additional information regarding the ISPAB, including its charter and current membership list, may be found on its electronic home page at
Annie Sokol, ISPAB Designated Federal Officer (DFO), NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-2006; fax: 301-975-8670; or via email at
The ISPAB (Committee or Board) was originally chartered as the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235). The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, title III), amended section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4), including changing the Committee's name, and the charter was amended accordingly.
1. The Board will identify emerging managerial, technical, administrative, and physical safeguard issues relative to information security and privacy.
2. The Board will advise the NIST and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal Government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST.
3. The Board shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Board reports annually to the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of OMB, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the appropriate committees of the Congress.
5. The Board will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Director of NIST will appoint the chairperson and the members of the ISPAB, and members serve at the discretion of the NIST Director. Members will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
2. The ISPAB will consist of a total of twelve members and a Chairperson.
• The Board will include four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the information technology industry, at least one of whom is representative of small or medium sized companies in such industries.
• The Board will include four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the fields of information technology, or related disciplines, but who are not employed by or representative of a producer of information technology.
• The Board will include four members from the Federal Government who have information system management experience, including experience in information security and privacy, at least one of whom shall be from the National Security Agency.
1. Members of the Board, other than full-time employees of the Federal government, will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Meetings of the ISPAB are usually two to three days in duration and are usually held quarterly. ISPAB meetings are open to the public, including the press. Members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their ISPAB duties.
1. Nominations are being accepted in all three categories described above.
2. Nominees should have specific experience related to information security or privacy issues, particularly as they pertain to Federal information technology. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Also include (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and any Federal employment. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the ISPAB, and that they will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the ISPAB.
3. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote a minimum of two days between meetings to developing draft issue papers, researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their ISPAB duties.
4. Selection of ISPAB members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as ISPAB vacancies occur.
5. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse ISPAB membership.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Kari Reidy, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-963-6556. Additional information regarding MEP, including its charter may be found on its electronic home page at
Ms. Kari Reidy, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800; telephone 301-975-4919, fax 301-963-6556; or via email at
The MEP Advisory Board (Board) is authorized under section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69); codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(e), as amended, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Board will provide advice on MEP programs, plans, and policies.
2. The Board will assess the soundness of MEP plans and strategies.
3. The Board will assess current performance against MEP program plans.
4. The Board will function solely in an advisory capacity, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
5. The Board shall transmit through the Director of NIST an annual report to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce for transmittal to Congress within 30 days after the submission to Congress of the President's annual budget request each year. The report shall address the status of the MEP
1. The Board shall consist of 10 members, broadly representative of stakeholders, appointed by the Director of NIST. At least 2 members shall be employed by or on an advisory board for the MEP Centers, and at least 5 other members shall be from United States small businesses in the manufacturing sector. No member shall be an employee of the Federal Government.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Board. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. Board members serve at the discretion of the Director of NIST.
3. The term of office of each member of the Board shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Board shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment during the one-year period following the expiration of the second term.
1. Members of the Board will not be compensated for their services but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Board will meet at least three times a year. Additional meetings may be called by the Director of NIST or the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) or his or her designee.
3. Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are being accepted in all categories described above.
2. Nominees should have specific experience related to manufacturing and industrial extension services. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination and acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the MEP Advisory Board.
3. Selection of MEP Advisory Board members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as Board vacancies occur.
4. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse MEP Advisory Board membership.
Please submit nominations to Benjamin Davis, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604. Additional information regarding the NCST, including its charter may be found on its electronic home page at
Benjamin Davis, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604, telephone 301-975-6071; or via email at
The NCST Advisory Committee (Committee) was established in accordance with the National Construction Safety Team Act, Pub. L. 107-231 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Committee shall advise the Director of the NIST on carrying out the National Construction Safety Team Act (Act), review and provide advice on the procedures developed under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and review and provide advice on the reports issued under section 8 of the Act.
2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. On January 1 of each year, the Committee shall transmit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that includes: (1) An evaluation of National Construction Safety Team (Team) activities, along with recommendations to improve the operation and effectiveness of Teams, and (2) an assessment of the implementation of the recommendations of Teams and of the Committee.
1. The Committee shall consist of not fewer than five nor more than ten members. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams.
2. The Director of the NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their services but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5703.
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs), will be subject to the ethics standards applicable to SGEs, and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
3. The Committee shall meet face-to-face at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever requested by the NIST Director or the Chair; such meetings may be in the form of telephone conference calls and/or videoconferences.
1. Nominations are sought from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the nominee agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.
Please submit nominations to Tina Faecke, Management and Program Analyst, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4032 or email at
Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604, telephone 301-975-5640, fax 301-975-4032; or via email at
The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (Committee) was established in accordance with the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-360 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Committee will act in the public interest to assess trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction, effectiveness of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Program) in carrying out the activities under section (a)(2) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7704(a)(2)), the need to revise the Program, the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program.
2. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST at least once every two years on its findings of the assessments and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider the recommendations of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC).
1. The Committee shall consist of not fewer than 11, nor more than 17 members. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
3. The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy and that members shall have staggered terms such that the Committee will have approximately one-third new or reappointed members each year.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their services, but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethics standards applicable to SGEs, and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
3. The Committee members shall meet face-to-face at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever requested by the NIST Director or the Chair; such meetings may be in the form of telephone conference calls and/or videoconferences.
4. Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Members will be drawn from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, such as, but not limited to, research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, state and local government, and financial communities, who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines.
2. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Committee shall be ineligible for appointment for a third term during the two year period following the expiration of the second term.
3. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the nominee agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.
4. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad based and diverse Committee membership.
Please submit nominations to Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200. Nominations may also be submitted via email to
Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at
The NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (Committee) was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration.
1. The Committee shall advise the Director of the National Institute of
2. The Committee duties are solely advisory in nature in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall provide input to NIST on the Smart Grid Standards, Priorities, and Gaps, on the overall direction, status and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry including identification of issues and needs, on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities and on the direction of research and standards activities.
5. Upon request of the Director of NIST, the Committee will prepare reports on issues affecting Smart Grid activities.
1. The Committee shall consist of no less than 9 and no more than 15 members. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the Smart Grid deployment and operations and will come from a cross section of organizations.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Committee shall meet approximately two times per year at the call of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Additional meetings may be called by the DFO whenever one-third or more of the members so request it in writing or whenever the Director of NIST requests a meeting.
1. Nominations are sought from all fields involved in issues affecting the Smart Grid.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.
The VCAT (Committee) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress.
2. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall provide an annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress not later than 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the President's annual budget request in each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect NIST, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy adviser of NIST is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of research and research techniques of NIST of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of United States industry, in which NIST possesses special competence, which could be used to assist United States enterprises and United States industrial joint research and development ventures. Such report also shall comment on the programmatic planning document and updates thereto submitted to Congress by the Director under subsections (c) and (d) of section 278i of the NIST Act. The Committee shall submit to the Secretary and the Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it deems appropriate.
1. The Committee shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Director of NIST, at least ten of whom shall be from United States industry. Members shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service; shall provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging United States industries; and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
3. The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy.
1. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethics standards applicable to SGEs. As SGEs, the members are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
3. Meetings of the VCAT usually take place at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Meetings are usually two days in duration and are held at least twice each year.
4. Generally, Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment and international relations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the candidate agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse VCAT membership.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Todd Robeck, D.V.M, Ph.D., Sea World Parks and Entertainment Corp, 500 Sea World Drive, San Diego, CA 92109, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 16193.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 7, 2016.
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 16193 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 16193, issued on August 28, 2012, authorizes the permit holder to receive, import, and export cetacean and pinniped specimens to study reproductive physiology, including endocrinology, gamete biology, and cryophysiology. The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include unlimited samples from up to 300 wild Amazon River dolphins (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Jennifer Burns, Ph.D., University of Alaska Anchorage, Biology Department, 3101 Science Circle, Anchorage, AK, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 15510.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 7, 2016.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Rosa L. González or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 15510 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 15510, issued on April 25, 2011 (76 FR 25308), authorizes Dr. Burns to conduct physiology studies on development, thermoregulation, muscle performance, oxygen stores, and hormonal and other regulatory processes using marine mammal parts. Annually, Dr. Burns can obtain samples from up to 50 animals of each of the following species: harp (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at §§ 648.74, 648.75, and 648.76 form the basis for this collection of information. We request information from surfclam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) permit holders to issue ITQ permits and to process and track requests from permit holders to transfer quota share or cage tags. We also request information from surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ permit holders to track and properly account for surfclam and ocean quahog harvest shucked at sea. Because there is not a standard conversion factor for estimating unshucked product from shucked product, NMFS requires vessels that shuck product at sea to carry on board the vessel a NMFS-approved observer to certify the amount of these clams harvested. This information, upon receipt, results in an efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ.
Georges Bank has been closed to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs since 1990 due to red tide blooms that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). In 2013, a portion of Georges Bank was reopened with certain restrictions. We request information from surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ permit holders who fish in the reopened portion of the Georges Bank Closed Area to ensure compliance with the Protocol for Onboard Screening and Dockside Testing in Molluscan Shellfish. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the commercial fishing industry, and NMFS developed the PSP protocol to test and verify that clams harvested from Georges Bank continue to be safe for human consumption. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program adopted the PSP protocol at the October 2011 Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Daniel P. Costa, Ph.D., University of California at Santa Cruz, Long Marine Laboratory, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 to conduct research on pinnipeds in Antarctica.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Amy Sloan or Rosa L. González, (301) 427-8401.
On August 28, 2015, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes the permit holder to capture and sample leopard (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Stephen John Trumble, Ph.D., Baylor University, 101 Bagby Ave., Waco, TX 76706, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 17157-01.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 7, 2016.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 17157-01 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 17157, issued on July 18, 2012, and amended on November 7, 2014, authorizes the receipt, import and export of up to 25 earplugs annually of each of the following species of whale: Blue (
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the permit to increase the number of animals that samples could be received, imported, and exported from 25 to 100 individuals annually. In addition, the applicant is requesting authorization to receive, import, and export baleen samples from blue and fin whales. No takes of live animals are or would be authorized. The permit expires on July 17, 2017.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:
Friday, December 18, 2015, 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (ET).
Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Suite 8312, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to 10th floor reception area for escort).
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-988-9648 conference call access code number 5755950. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and CNCS will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 800-843-4802, access code number 22589. TTY: 800-833-3722. The end replay date is January 18, 2016, 11:29 p.m. (CT).
Open.
Members of the public who would like to comment on the business of the Board may do so in writing or in person. Individuals may submit written comments to
The Corporation for National and Community Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify Ida Green at
Jenny Mauk, Special Assistant to the CEO, Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6615. Fax: 202-606-3460. TTY: 800-833-3722. Email:
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), DoD.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel).
Thursday, January 7, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
CAPT Edward Norton, DFO, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101. Telephone: (703) 681-2890. Fax: (703) 681-1940. Email Address:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended) and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended).
To ensure timeliness of comments for the official record, the Panel encourages that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application and Initial BaselineTariff Filing to be effective 12/3/2015.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On June 1, 2015, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (Natural) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-505-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Chicago Market Expansion Project (Project), and would provide about 238,000 dekatherms of incremental northbound firm transportation capacity to the city of Chicago, Illinois and neighboring areas.
On June 12, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The proposed Project would construct a new 30,000 horsepower natural gas-fired compressor station with suction and discharge piping and ancillary equipment in Livingston County, Illinois.
On July 9, 2015, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Marshall Wind Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 22, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On September 14, 2015, Lock
The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 1,015-foot-long and approximately 14.5-foot-high dam discharging into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River; (2) one 150-foot-wide, 25-foot-deep Large Frame Module (LFM) containing ten 900-kilowatt (kW) hydropower turbines for a total installed capacity of 9,000 kW; (3) a 150-foot-wide, 150-foot-long tailrace; (4) a 25-foot by 50-foot switchyard containing a new transformer and control room; (5) a 1,000-foot-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line connecting the generating power to the local grid using an existing substation; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The LFM would be installed either adjacent to the dam in the existing levee north of the dam or on the upper poolside of the dam. The estimated annual generation of the Hepburn Project would be 51,000 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On September 22, 2015, Albany Engineering Corporation filed an application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at the New York State Canal Corporation's Lock C1 Dam located on the Hudson River in Saratoga and Rensselaer Counties, New York. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed Waterford Hydroelectric Project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 672-foot-long and 15-foot-high ogee-shaped concrete gravity dam with a 356-foot-long tainter-gated structure forming the eastern portion of the dam; (2) an existing impoundment having a surface area of 400 acres and a storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet at the spillway crest elevation of 28.3 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum; (3) either a new powerhouse at the east end of the dam with two identical turbine generator units with a total installed capacity of 10.2 megawatts (MW) (Scenario 1), or two new identical modular floating barge-type structures at the west end of the tainter gates housing 18 turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 4.0 MW (Scenario 2); (4) a proposed 10,000-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 39,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) (Scenario 1) or 12,000 MWh (Scenario 2).
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: Actualidad 1040AM Licensee, LLC, Station WLVJ, Facility ID 4341, BP-20150706ACT, From Boynton Beach, FL, To Miami, FL; Actualidad 990AM Licensee, LLC, Station WMYM, Facility ID 12833, BP-20150706ACS, From Miami, FL, To Kendall, FL; Actualidad Licensee 1020AM, LLC, Station WURN, Facility ID 3607, BP- 20150706ACU, From Kendall, FL, To Boynton Beach, FL; Alpha Media Licensee, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 198622, BNPH-20151013AIK, From Longview, TX, To Atlanta, TX; Costa-Eagle Radio Ventures Limited Partnership, Station WMVX, Facility ID 22798, BP-20151119AYB, From Beverly, MA, To Methuen, MA; EDB VV License, LLC, Station KXFM, Facility ID 5470, BPH-20151110ANR, From Santa Maria, CA, To Montecito, CA; Educational Media Foundation, Station NEW, Facility ID 198724, BNPH-20151013AGJ, From Baggs, WY, To Yampa, CO; Jackman Holding Company, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 198745, BNPH-20151013ADJ, From Moro, OR, To White Salmon, WA; Katherine Pyeatt, Station NEW, Facility ID 190004, BNPH-20111013ACU, From Midway, TX, To Groveton, TX; Northeast Colorado Broadcasting, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 198758, BNPH-20151013ADX, From Akron, CO, To Eckley, CO; Northway Broadcasting, Station NEW, Facility ID 190452, BNPH-20120530AOI, From Silver Springs, NV, To Fallon, NV; Summit Broadcasting II, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 198794, BNPH-20151013AAM, From McCall, ID, To Silver City, ID.
The agency must receive comments on or before February 8, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.
The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
The FCC is responsible for the regulation of both authorized radio services and devices that can cause interference. The FCC, working in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for ensuring that radio frequency devices imported into the United States are properly authorized. FCC Form 740 must be completed for each radio frequency device which is imported into the United States, and is used to keep non-compliant devices from being distributed to the general public, thereby reducing the potential for harmful interference being caused to authorized communications. FCC Form 740 is submitted to CBP electronically or, in a few cases, in paper format. The FCC Form 740 is not submitted to the Federal Communications Commission. FCC works with the CBP to resolve issues related to the importation of unauthorized radio frequency devices, and can issue fines for violation of its rules.
This information collection extension does not affect the ongoing rulemaking in ET Docket 15-170, which includes proposed rules that would modify or eliminate FCC Form 740.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Notice.
Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, requires civilian agencies to prepare an annual inventory of their service contracts and to analyze the inventory to determine if the mix of Federal employees and contractors is effective or if rebalancing may be required. In accordance with Section 743, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is publishing this notice to instruct the public of the availability of its FY 2014 Service Contract Analysis and Inventory. The Inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2014. These documents are available on the FMCS Web site at
Linda Gray-Broughton, Grants Specialist at
11:00 a.m., Thursday, December 17, 2015.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 17, 2015.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2015-30289) published on page 74772 of the issue for November 30, 2015.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas heading, the entry for Child's Disclaimer Trust, Uvalde, Texas, is revised to read as follows:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by December 14, 2015.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
1.
Regulation II allows adjustments to debit card interchange transaction fees to make an allowance for fraud-prevention costs incurred by issuers. The regulation permits an issuer to receive or charge an amount of no more than 1 cent per transaction in addition to its interchange transaction fee if the issuer develops and implements policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to take effective steps to reduce the occurrence of, and costs to all parties from, fraudulent electronic debit transactions. An issuer must notify its payment card networks annually that it complies with the Federal Reserve's standards for the fraud-prevention adjustment.
Regulation II requires issuers to retain evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed for a period of not less than five years after the end of the calendar year in which the electronic debit transaction occurred.
2.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 4, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 2, 2015.
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 23, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
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 Governors not later than January 4, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) December 14, 2015 (Telephonic).
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Meredith Levert (202-326-2881), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for November 25, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 28, 2015. Write “NXP Semiconductors N.V.—Consent Agreement; File No.151-0090” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “NXP Semiconductors N.V.—Consent Agreement; File No.151-0090” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted from NXP Semiconductors N.V. (“NXP”), subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from NXP's proposed acquisition of Freescale Semiconductor Ltd. (“Freescale”).
On March 1, 2015, NXP and Freescale executed an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which NXP will acquire all of Freescale's common stock in a transaction valued at approximately $11.8 billion (“Acquisition”). The proposed Acquisition would combine the two largest suppliers of RF power amplifiers. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the worldwide market for RF power amplifiers.
Under the terms of the proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) contained in the Consent Agreement, NXP is required, no later than ten days from the close of the NXP/Freescale transaction, to divest its RF power amplifier assets to Jianguang Asset Management Co., Ltd. (“JAC”). The divestiture package includes a manufacturing facility, manufacturing equipment, intellectual property, and customer and supplier contracts. NXP's RF power employees, including the leadership of the business, will also transfer to JAC. The Consent Agreement provides JAC with everything needed to compete effectively in the RF power amplifier market.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make it final.
Headquartered in the Netherlands, NXP is a semiconductor developer and manufacturer specializing in high performance mixed signal devices for a variety of industries. NXP designs, manufactures, and sells RF power amplifiers, among other products, through its Secure Interface & Power division.
Headquartered in Austin, Texas, Freescale is a manufacturer of stand-alone semiconductors that perform dedicated power usage functions in a variety of electronic systems for automotive, networking, industrial, and consumer applications. Freescale designs, manufactures, and sells RF
The relevant line of commerce in which to analyze the effects of the Acquisition is no broader than RF power amplifiers. RF power amplifiers (also referred to as RF power transistors) are high power (>1 watt average output power) semiconductors that increase the strength of radio signals transmitted between electronic devices. The largest application for RF power amplifiers, accounting for roughly 70% of revenues, is wireless infrastructure—
The relevant geographic market for RF power amplifiers is worldwide. The three major RF power amplifier suppliers (see below) manufacture the products in facilities around the world, and ship the products from those facilities to customer locations worldwide. There are currently no regulatory barriers, tariffs, or technical specifications that impede worldwide trade, and transportation costs are low.
The RF power amplifier market is characterized by a limited number of suppliers, including Freescale, the largest supplier with 36.6% of the market, and NXP, the second-largest supplier with 25.1% of the market. Infineon Technologies AG (“Infineon”) is the third largest supplier. Freescale, NXP, and Infineon are the only meaningful suppliers of LDMOS-based RF power amplifiers. Infineon, however, has a significantly smaller RF power portfolio than either Freescale or NXP. Several additional companies supply GaN-based RF power amplifiers only, but have small market shares.
The proposed NXP/Freescale combination would cause a moderately concentrated market for RF power amplifiers to become highly concentrated, increasing the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index from 2,203 to 4,040 (a delta of 1,837). This increase in concentration far exceeds the thresholds set out in the
Entry into the RF power amplifier market is not likely to deter or counteract any anticompetitive effects of the proposed Acquisition. Entry is unlikely in light of high capital costs, significant switching costs by customers, and the considerable time it would take for customers to develop trust in a new entrant's products. The same barriers would apply to an expansion into LDMOS-based RF power amplifiers by companies that currently supply only GaN-based RF power amplifiers.
Absent a divestiture, the proposed Acquisition is likely to cause competitive harm in the market for RF power amplifiers. NXP and Freescale compete directly for RF power amplifier sales, and customers benefit from that competition in terms of both pricing and product innovation. Customers describe NXP and Freescale as each other's closest competitors, and the parties appear to view each other the same way. By eliminating the competition between NXP and Freescale, the proposed Acquisition likely would lead to unilateral effects in the form of higher prices and reduced innovation, particularly in the wireless infrastructure segment.
The Consent Agreement restores the competition lost from NXP's proposed acquisition of Freescale by requiring NXP to divest its RF power amplifier business to JAC, a Chinese private equity management fund. The proposed divestiture includes everything needed for JAC to compete effectively in the worldwide market for RF power amplifiers.
Under the Order, NXP is required, no later than ten days from the close of the NXP/Freescale transaction, to divest its RF power amplifier assets to JAC. The assets to be divested include a manufacturing facility located in Cabuyao (Philippines), a building in Nijmegen (the Netherlands) to house management and certain R&D and testing labs, all manufacturing and R&D assets used primarily for the RF power amplifier business, and customer support equipment. Additionally, the divestiture package includes all patents and technologies that are exclusively or predominantly used for the RF power amplifier business, and a royalty-free license to use all other NXP patents and technologies required by that business. Finally, the divestiture package includes the transition of NXP's RF power amplifier employees, including the complete management team, to JAC.
The manufacturing assets in the divestiture package include NXP's RF power amplifier back-end manufacturing assets (including the portion of the Philippines facility dedicated to these products) but not its front-end manufacturing assets. Instead, JAC will outsource its front-end manufacturing to a third-party wafer foundry. In the interim, the Order requires that, at the request of JAC and in a manner approved by the Commission, NXP must provide front-end wafer manufacturing for a period of up to sixty months. Similarly, the Order also requires NXP to provide support services such as logistical and administrative support for a period of up to thirty-six months.
In addition, the Order includes other standard terms designed to ensure the viability of the divested business. NXP must assist JAC in hiring the existing work force of NXP's RF power amplifier business, and must refrain from soliciting those employees for two years. A Monitor will oversee NXP's compliance with the obligations set forth in the Order. If NXP does not fully comply with the divestiture and requirements of the Order, the Commission may appoint a Divestiture Trustee to divest the RF power amplifier assets and perform NXP's other obligations consistent with the Order.
Given the robustness of the divested business and the protections contained in the Order, the divestiture of NXP's RF power amplifier assets to JAC is likely to preserve competition. Potential customers have confirmed that the divested assets include everything necessary to compete effectively as a viable business. Similarly, potential customers have confirmed that JAC would be a workable option as a supplier.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement to aid the Commission in determining whether it should make the Consent Agreement final. This analysis is not an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and does not modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0214, expires 12/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect data on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States. The annual National Health Interview Survey is a major source of general statistics on the health of the U.S. population and has been in the field continuously since 1957. Clearance is sought for three years, to collect data from 2016 to 2018. This voluntary and confidential household-based survey collects demographic and health-related information from a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized, civilian persons and households throughout the country. Personal identification information is requested from survey respondents to facilitate linkage of survey data with health-related administrative and other records. In 2016 the NHIS will collect information from approximately 45,000 households, which contain about 112,000 individuals.
Information is collected using computer assisted personal interviews (CAPI). A core set of data is collected each year that remains largely unchanged, whereas sponsored supplements vary from year to year. The core set includes socio-demographic characteristics, health status, health care services, and health behaviors. For 2016, supplemental questions will be cycled in pertaining to balance, blood donation, chronic pain, diabetes, and vision. Supplemental topics that continue or are enhanced from 2015 pertain to family food security, heart disease and stroke, inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis B and C screening, children's mental health, disability and functioning, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes, and immunizations. Questions from 2015 on cancer control, epilepsy, and occupational health have been removed. In addition to these core and supplemental modules, a follow-back survey will be conducted on previous NHIS respondents to collect additional health related information using alternative question wording and data collection modes as a testbed for the intended 2018 redesign of the NHIS questionnaire. In addition, a subsample of NHIS respondents may be identified to participate in a pilot test to assess the feasibility of integrating wearable devices into the NHIS data collection process. The aim is to directly track health measurements, to compare those measurements to the self-reported health information provided by respondents, and to assess the role of devices in reducing respondent burden.
A new sampling strategy is being implemented in 2016 and for the foreseeable future. This new sampling design is necessitated by the prior 2006-2015 sample being exhausted, and will take into account demographic shifts in the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. It will also be more flexible allowing for additions and contractions to reflect funding availability and to meet estimation goals. As in previous years, the base sample will remain at approximately 35,000 completed household interviews annually. To balance the precision of national and state-based estimates, most of the sample (approximately 25,000 completed interviews) will be allocated proportionally to the state population to maximize the precision of national-level estimates. A smaller portion of the sample (approximately 10,000 completed interviews) will be shifted to increase sample in the 10 least populous states, enabling state-level estimates of key variables to be produced for all 50 states and DC by pooling 3 years of data. This flexibility embedded in the new sampling plan reflects. Additional funding to improve state-level estimates will increase the sample by almost 10,000 completed interviews in midsize states bringing the total expected sample size in 2016 to 45,000 households.
Whereas the sampling frame for the NHIS has traditionally used field listing by the Census Bureau, in order to contain costs, the new frame will use a commercially available address list that covers residential addresses within all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Some field listing will be undertaken to improve coverage in rural areas, in high density areas, and of university housing units. This represents a substantial reduction in the number of listings performed annually.
It is anticipated that this new sampling plan will not affect estimates generated using NHIS data. To monitor the new design's performance, NHIS analysts will perform monthly checks in line with the ones currently performed as part of routine data review. NCHS receives raw data files monthly from the Census Bureau for processing and quality review. Each year, results from the January sample are compared to the
In accordance with the 1995 initiative to increase the integration of surveys within the DHHS, respondents to the NHIS serve as the sampling frame for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The NHIS has long been used by government, academic, and private researchers to evaluate both general health and specific issues, such as smoking, diabetes, health care coverage, and access to health care. It is a leading source of data for the Congressionally-mandated “Health US” and related publications, as well as the single most important source of statistics to track progress toward the National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives, “Healthy People 2020.”
Burden hours have seen a net increase of 1,367 hours compared to 2015 due to the removal of the screener questionnaire and the addition of the questionnaire redesign activities. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public
1.
To qualify for payment, providers must prescribe beta amyloid PET for beneficiaries with a set of clinical criteria specific to each cancer. Data elements will be transmitted to CMS for evaluation of the short and long-term benefits of beta amyloid PET to beneficiaries and for use in future clinical decision making.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
Administration for Native Americans, ACF, HHS.
Notice for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended, the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is required to provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on proposed changes in interpretive rules and general statements of policy, and to give notice of the proposed adoption of such changes at least 30 days before the changes become effective. In accordance with notice requirements of NAPA, ANA herein describes its proposed interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency procedure or practice as they relate to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) for the following programs: (1) Social and Economic Development Strategies (hereinafter referred to as SEDS) (HHS-2014-ACF-ANA-NA-0776); (2) Social and Economic Development Strategies- Alaska (hereinafter referred to as SEDS-AK) (HHS-2015-ACF-ANA-NK-0960); (3) Native Asset Building Initiative (hereinafter referred to as NABI) (HHS-2015-ACF-ANA-NO-0954); (4) Sustainable Employment and Economic Development Strategies (hereinafter referred to as SEEDS) (HHS-2014-ACF-ANA-NE-0779); (5) Native Language Preservation and Maintenance (hereinafter referred to as Language Preservation) (HHS-2014-ACF-ANA-NL-0778); (6) Native Language Preservation and Maintenance—Esther Martinez Immersion (hereinafter referred to as Language—EMI) (HHS-2014-ACF-ANA-NB-0780); (7) Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (hereinafter referred to as ERE) (HHS-2014-ACF-ANA-NR-0777); and new FOAs for FY2016—(8) Native Language Community Coordination Demonstration Project (hereinafter referred to as NLCC) (HHS-2016-ACF-ANA-NS-1168); and (9) Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development (hereinafter referred to as Native Youth I-LEAD) (HHS-2016-ACF-ANA-NC-1167) . This notice of public comment also provides additional information about ANA's plan for administering the programs.
The deadline for receipt of comments is 15 days from the date of publication in the
Send comments in response to this notice via email to Lillian Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans at
Carmelia Strickland, Director, Division of Program Operations, ANA (877) 922-9262.
Section 814 of NAPA, as amended, requires ANA to provide notice of its proposed interpretive rules and general statements of policy. The proposed clarifications, modifications, and new text will appear in the eight FY 2016 FOAs: SEDS, SEDS-AK, SEEDS, Language Preservation, Language—EMI, ERE, NLCC, and Native Youth I-LEAD. This notice serves to fulfill this requirement.
ANA will offer two new FOAs in FY 2016. The proposed changes to FOA content and policies described in this Notice of Public Comment also will be applicable to the new FOAs described here:
1. Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development (I-LEAD) FOA; 42 U.S.C. 2991b (HHS-2016-ACF-ANA-NC-1167): ANA plans to publish a new FOA to support projects that will take a comprehensive, culturally-appropriate, approach to ensure all young Native
While youth development projects are also eligible for funding under ANA's SEDS FOA, Native Youth I-LEAD will specifically focus on implementation of community programs that promote Native youth resiliency and foster protective factors such as connections with Native languages and Elders, positive peer groups, culturally-responsive parenting resources, models of safe sanctuary, and reconnection with traditional healing. Projects will also promote Native youth leadership development through the establishment of local models to instill confidence in Native youth of their value and potential, preparation of older youth to be role models for younger peers, and activities that foster leadership and skills-building. In addition, it is required that Native youth will be actively involved during the planning and implementation phases of the projects to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of Native youth in the communities to be served and to ensure that youth remain engaged throughout the project period. Awards made under this FOA will be cooperative agreements since ANA anticipates substantial programmatic involvement with the recipient during performance of financially-assisted activities that will include specialized and directed technical assistance and support across the cohort of recipients.
ANA's Administrative Policies that prevent recipients from having concurrent or successive grants with the same CFDA Number, 93.612, will not apply to recipients under the Native Youth I-LEAD FOA.
2. Native Language Community Coordination Demonstration Project FOA; (HHS-2016-ACF-ANA-NS-1168): ANA plans to publish a new FOA whose purpose is to build upon the successes of ANA's short-term, project-based Native Language funding. This initiative is intended as a place-based demonstration that will address gaps in community coordination across the Native language educational continuum. An essential aspect of this initiative is community capacity-building focused on the role and influence of Native language on Native students' academic success, school attendance, and career readiness. Projects funded under this initiative will ensure high-quality Native language instruction from early childhood through college and/or career. Projects also will be required to provide appropriate and culturally-responsive curricula, Native language teacher professional development, and additional services and supports that are aligned, implemented, and evaluated to create a seamless path for Native language acquisition across generations for educational and economic success. Awards made under this FOA will be cooperative agreements since ANA anticipates substantial programmatic involvement with the recipient during performance of financially-assisted activities that will include specialized and directed technical assistance and support across the cohort of recipients.
This FOA will be published under ANA's Community Research, Demonstration and Pilot Projects CFDA Number, 93.340. Under the NAPA 42 U.S.C. 2991d, the Commissioner has authority to provide financial assistance conducted to public or private agencies for research, demonstration, or pilot projects which are designed to test or assist in the development of new approaches or methods that will aid in overcoming special problems.
For some time, ANA has heard during tribal consultations and language summits that it is difficult to coordinate stand-alone language programs into the broader educational system. Also, tribal, public, charter, private schools, and colleges and universities that use primarily Native American languages to deliver education report that students from schools, which have been successful in coordinating language programs, have high school graduation rates and college attendance rates above the norm for their peers. This initiative will address gaps in community coordination; bring together key drivers of program effectiveness; test the efficacy of distinctive Native teaching materials, methods, and activities; and, contribute to the evidence base of Native language student outcomes.
Since this program will use the CFDA Number 93.340, ANA's Administrative Policy that prevents applicants from having concurrent grants under the same CFDA Number is not applicable to Native Language Community Coordination Demonstration Project FOA (HHS-2016-ACF-ANA-NS-1168).
Applicants for funding under this demonstration project must be able to identify existing Native language instruction programs or partnerships that are in place and will be developed or expanded during the project's implementation. Since one purpose of the demonstration project is to facilitate the coordination of Native language instruction and services among early childhood development, elementary, middle-school, high school, and higher education partners, we require third-party agreements from each of the identified partners describing or demonstrating their commitment to the 5-year project and to verify their role in its implementation. The third-party agreements should be included with the applicant's submission to ANA. Without ANA's receipt of such signed and dated letters from authorized officials of the project's organizational participants prior to the start of the award of grant funds, the applicant's project cannot be approved.
1. Native Language Preservation and Maintenance FOA; 42 U.S.C. 2991b-3(a):
(a) In
i. Modify the Description and program areas of interest for the Language Preservation FOA to promote the ability to use Language Preservation funding for a broad array of native-language related projects, including the establishment of a language program, or the improvement of an existing program. Program Areas of Interest will be modified to include the development of tools and interactive media to teach Native American language, per NAPA § 803C.
(b) In
2. Language Preservation and Language-EMI FOAs; 42 U.S.C. 2991b-3(a) and (b)(7):
(a) In
(b) This change is intended to clarify the focus of the EMI FOA on immersion as the method of instruction for pre-school and school-aged children. Language Restoration programs will continue to be funded by ANA under
(c) In
Applicants must describe the plan for the program performance evaluation that will contribute to continuous quality improvement. The program performance evaluation should monitor ongoing processes and the progress towards the goals and objectives of the project. Include descriptions of the inputs (
Applicants must describe the systems and processes that will support the organization's performance management requirements through effective tracking of performance outcomes, including a description of how the organization will collect and manage data (
(d) In
(e) Use of Federal Application Submission Tool (FAST): ANA's previously announced intention to pilot the Funding Application Submission Tool (F.A.S.T.) form for the Language Preservation and Maintenance FOA is on hold. This announcement was published in the
3. SEDS and SEEDS FOAs; 42 U.S.C. 2991b:
(a) In
(b) In
(c) In
Instead, ANA encourages applicants to request the level of funding that best meets the needs of the proposed project without exceeding the stated Award Ceiling amount by budget period.
(d) The Award Ceiling for the SEEDS FOA will be reduced from $500,000 to $400,000; however, the project period will remain up to 60 months with five 12-month budget periods. The lower funding ceiling will allow ANA to fund additional projects under this competition. (The Award Ceiling level for awards under the SEDS FOA will remain at $400,000 as well as the same options for project periods as that offered in the FY 2015 FOA.)
4. Native Asset Building Initiative FOA; 42 U.S.C. 2991b:
ANA will discontinue the competition for the Native Asset Building Initiative. The two grants resulting from the partnership between the ANA and the Office of Community Services (OCS) will no longer be available as a single application submission. Asset building projects will be eligible for funding under the annual SEDS FOA. In addition, eligible applicants can participate directly in the OCS's Assets for Independence (AFI) Program. Interested applicants may access the OCS-AFI FOA at
1. The following administrative policy will be added to FY 2016 FOAs; 5 U.S.C. 301:
Compliance with Background Checks and Applicable Child Safety Laws:
“All recipients are expected to comply with applicable federal, tribal, or state law with respect to criminal history record checks and clearance through child abuse and neglect and sex offender registries.”
This new administrative policy will be added to all of our FOAs to ensure that staff hired to implement ANA-funded projects which involve children are fully-vetted with background checks and other applicable laws within the local jurisdiction in which the project operates to help ensure the safety and reduce the risk to participating youth.
1. Changes to Evaluation Criteria Maximum Point Values: In all FY 2016 FOAs, ANA proposes to adjust the maximum point values of evaluation criteria to prioritize the elements that are important to project monitoring and project success. ANA intends to add five points to the value for the Approach Criterion for a maximum point value of 35. The point value for the Objective Work Plan (OWP) criterion will be reduced will be reduced by five points for a maximum point value of 20 points. ANA proposes to use the following maximum point values for criteria in all FY 2016 FOAs:
2. Changes in Sub-criteria: ANA will streamline the evaluation sub-criteria, and reorganize specific elements, to clarify instructions to panel reviewers:
(a) A new sub-criterion related to the required Problem Statement will be included in the Need for Assistance criterion.
(b) Reference to Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (S.M.A.R.T.) objectives will be included in the sub-criteria for Objectives and not overall for the Outcomes Expected sections in the
(c) A new sub-criterion on the Current Status of Language will be added to the
1. Annual Data Report: ANA intends to add an Annual Data Report (ADR) to the reporting requirements for all funded projects. ANA has reduced its reporting requirements to twice—semi-annually and annually. ANA recently streamlined the Objective Progress Report (OPR), and determined that some information previously collected on the OPR is not necessary for project monitoring; however is important when analyzing project data. The ADR will capture this project data throughout the life of the project, versus just asking at the end of the project. The ADR also includes additional program-specific and project assessment questions. The report will supplement the annual OPR and will not deviate from the annual reporting cycle of the OPR, therefore still requiring grantees only report twice annually as stated previously. The report will be due 30 days after the end of each budget period and 90 days after the end of the project period.
ANA has relocated its offices to the Mary E. Switzer Memorial Building, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Our phone numbers and email addresses will remain the same. Phone: (877) 922-9262 Fax: (202) 690-7441 Email:
Contact information in all FY 2016 FOAs will be updated to provide mailing and physical location addresses for the new building.
Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended.
Coast Guard, Homeland Security.
Notice.
In 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century made $5 million per year available for the payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. In 2005, the law was amended, and the amount was increased to $5.5 million. The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to satisfy a requirement of the Act that a detailed accounting of the projects, programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the
For questions on this notice, call Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone 202-372-1061.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of the $5 million made available to carry out the national recreational boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code. On September 29, 2005, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments Act of 2005 was enacted (Public Law 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act increased the funds available to the national recreational boating safety program from $5 million to $5.5 million annually, and stated that “not less than” $2 million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
These funds are available to the Secretary from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund established under 26 U.S.C. 9504(a) for payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c), no funds available to the Secretary under this subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally provided through general appropriations, nor for any purposes except those purposes authorized; namely, for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Amounts made available under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) remain available during the two succeeding fiscal years. Any amount that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of the 3-year period during which it is available, shall be withdrawn by the Secretary and allocated to the States in addition to any other amounts available for allocation in the fiscal year in which they are withdrawn or the following fiscal year.
Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during fiscal year 2015 for each activity is shown below.
Manufacturer Compliance Inspection Program/Boat Testing Program: Funding was provided to continue the national recreational boat compliance inspection program, initiated in January 2001. During the Fiscal Year contracted personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, visit recreational boat manufacturers, recreational boat dealers, and recreational boat shows to inspect for compliance with the Federal regulations. During the 2015 reporting
Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: Funding was allocated to continue providing the BARD Web System, which enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia to submit their accident reports electronically over a secure Internet connection. The system also enables the user community to generate statistical reports that show the frequency, nature, and severity of boating accidents. Funds supported system maintenance, development, and technical (hotline) support. ($367,332).
Contract Personnel Support: Funding was provided for contract personnel to support the appropriate cost/benefit analyses for potential new regulations and to conduct general boating safety-related research and analysis and to assist the manufacturer compliance program. ($660,562).
Boating Accident News Clipping Services: Funding was provided to continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents nationally for more real time accident information and to identify accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety defects. ($25,000).
New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel: Funding was provided to facilitate travel by employees of the Boating Safety Division to carry out additional recreational boating safety actions and to gather background and planning information for new recreational boating safety initiatives. ($17,564).
Recreational Boating Safety Outreach Initiatives: Funding was provided to produce signage promoting recreational boating safety at the U.S. Coast Guard's Douglas A. Munro Headquarters Building, and to provide appropriate recognition to select individuals for outstanding achievements in promoting boating safety. ($2,487).
Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was provided to carry out the work as prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) and as described herein. The first position was that of a professional mathematician/statistician to conduct necessary national surveys and studies on recreational boating activities as well as to serve as a liaison to other Federal agencies that are conducting boating surveys so that we can pool our resources and reduce costs. The second position was that of a Recreational Boating Safety Specialist/Marine Investigator with responsibilities that include overseeing and managing RBS projects related to carbon monoxide poisoning, propeller injury mitigation, and manufacturer compliance initiatives. The third position was that of a Legislative and Strategic Planning Manager, with responsibilities that include analyzing proposed and enacted legislation for RBS impacts, and managing the development and implementation of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program's strategic plan. The fourth position was that of a Division Administrative Assistant, with responsibilities that include providing administrative support for the Boating Safety Division. ($513,045).
Technical Support and Analysis for the Recreational Boating Safety Program: The purpose of this contract is to obtain Contractor professional, technical, and management support for services relating to the national survey development, nonprofit grants grading assessments, and other analysis as needed for the enhancement of the administration of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program. Projects covered by the contract include statistical analyses of data collected in the 2012 National Recreational Boating Survey and research on the implications of the findings relative to boating safety and the National Recreational Boating Safety Program; a review of scientific literature covering various measures of risk exposure in other transportation related fields; support in designing the next National Recreational Boating Survey; and development of a web-based system for review of national nonprofit organization grant submissions. ($130,847).
Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2015, $2,120,466 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an additional $1,183,741 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed, obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2015. The remainder of the FY14 and FY15 funds made available to the Coast Guard (approximately $5,132,275) may be retained for the allowable period for the National Recreational Boating Survey or transferred into the pool of money available for allocation through the state grant program.
This notice is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C. 13107(c)(4).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft long range transportation plan for public review and comment. The Draft Long Range Transportation Plan outlines a strategy for improving and maintaining transportation assets that provide access to Service-managed lands in the Southeast Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) over the next 20 years.
We must receive written comments on or before January 7, 2016.
Alternatively, you may contact Jo Ann Clark, Regional Transportation Program Manager, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345 (404-679-4114).
•
•
•
For additional information about submitting comments, see the “Public Availability of Comments” section below.
Jo Ann Clark, at the above address, phone number, or email.
With this notice, we make the Draft LRTP for the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service available for public review and comment. When finalized, the LRTP will apply to Service-managed lands in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires all Federal land management agencies to conduct long-range transportation planning in a manner that is consistent with metropolitan planning organization and State departments of transportation planning. This LRTP was initiated within the Service to achieve the following:
• Establish a defensible structure for sound transportation planning and decision-making.
• Establish a vision, mission, goals, and objectives for transportation planning in the Service's Southeast Region.
• Implement coordinated and cooperative transportation partnerships in an effort to improve the Service's transportation infrastructure.
• Integrate transportation planning and funding for wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries into existing and future Service management plans and strategies—
• Increase awareness of Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) and associated benefits.
• Develop best management practices (BMP) for transportation improvements on Service lands.
• Serve as a pilot project for the implementation of a region-level transportation planning process within the Service.
Through a collaborative effort, the National Wildlife Refuge System and Fisheries Programs, in cooperation with the Divisions of Planning and Visitor Services within the Service's Southeast Region, have contributed to defining the mission, goals, and objectives presented in this document. The resulting mission, goals, and objectives are intended to provide a systematic approach to guide the process for evaluating and selecting transportation improvement for the Service lands in the Southeast Region. These guiding principles have shaped the development, conclusions, and recommendations of this LRTP.
To support the Service's mission by connecting people to fish, wildlife, and their habitats through strategic implementation of transportation programs.
This long-range transportation plan has six categories of goals: Resource protection, safety and condition, welcome and orientation, planning, partnerships, and sustainability. Under each goal, we present distinct objectives that move us to the goal.
• Natural Resource Protection: Ensure that the transportation program helps to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.
• Safety and Conditions: Provide a safe and reliable transportation network to and within Service lands.
• Welcome and Orientation: Develop and maintain a transportation network that enhances the welcoming and orienting experience of visitors.
• Planning: Integrate appropriate transportation planning into Service plans and processes.
• Partnerships: Develop partnerships to leverage resources and develop integrated transportation solutions.
• Sustainability: Adopt and promote sustainable transportation practices.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final LRTP.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing recovery permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
Comments on these permit applications must be received on or before January 7, 2016.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Endangered Species Program Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone: 916-414-6464; fax: 916-414-6486). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.
Daniel Marquez, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; see
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the mountain yellow-legged frog (Southern California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, collect branchiopod cysts, processing soil samples for branchiopod cyst identification, and culturing and hatching out branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit amendment and renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and remove brown-headed cowbird (
The applicant requests a permit amendment and renewal to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit amendment and renewal to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit amendment and renewal to take (locate and monitor nests, and remove brown-headed cowbird (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate and monitor nests and remove brown-headed cowbird (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release) the Pacific pocket mouse (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release) the Pacific pocket mouse (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, and collect voucher specimens) the tidewater goby (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (locate and monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and, monitor nests, capture, handle, release, collect carcasses) the California least tern (
The applicant requests a permit renewal and amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, and collect) the delta smelt (
We invite public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order withdraws approximately 2,924.65 acres of public lands and 440 acres of reserved Federal minerals underlying non-Federal lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for 20 years to protect and preserve highly significant caves and their associated resources located in Eddy County. The lands have been and will remain open to leasing under the mineral leasing laws.
Effective Date: December 8, 2015.
Debby Lucero, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 505-954-2196. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to reach the BLM contact person. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Bureau of Land Management will manage the lands to protect highly significant cave locations and their associated resources located within Eddy County. The caves contain highly significant archaeological, paleontological, biological, geological, mineralogical, hydrological, and scenic values. These caves represent the very best examples of the above-stated resources on Bureau of Land Management administered land in this region. There are over 300 known caves in the area and many more are suspected.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands and Federally reserved minerals are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect highly significant caves and their associated resources:
The area described contains 1,210 acres.
The area described contains 50 acres.
The area described contains 100 acres.
The area described contains 42.70 acres.
Sec. 23, NE
The area described contains 260 acres.
The area described contains 130 acres.
The area described contains 750 acres.
The area described contains 22.50 acres.
The area described contains 359.45 acres.
The following described federally reserved minerals underlying non-Federal surface:
The areas described aggregate 440 acres.
The total areas described above aggregate 2,924.65 acres of public lands and 440 acres of Federal minerals underlying non-Federal lands in Eddy County.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of the public land laws other than the mining laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This order withdraws 343.23 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, or disposal under the Materials Act of 1947, for a period of 20 years to protect and preserve the Split Rock and Devil's Gate interpretive sites located along national historic trails in Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming.
Effective Date: December 8, 2015.
Janelle Wrigley, Realty Officer, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009, 307-775-6257 or via email at
The Bureau of Land Management will manage the land to protect the unique archeological, historical, geological, and recreational values of these two sites as well as the Federal investment for visitor use because of the special historical interpretive attributes contained at the sites.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, or disposal under the Materials Act of 1947, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management to protect unique archeological, historical, geological, and recreational values of these two sites.
The areas described aggregate 343.23 acres, more or less, in Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of the public land laws other than the mining laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Ohio History Connection has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Ohio History Connection. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Ohio History Connection at the address in this notice by January 7, 2016.
Bradley Lepper, Ohio History Connection, 800 East 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (614) 298-2064, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Ohio History Connection professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma.
In the 1920s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from a burial site in Schoenbrunn, in Tuscarawas County, OH. In 1927, William C. Mills investigated the cemetery, during which it is believed the human remains of a child (A4213/2) and an adult (A4213/3) were encountered. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three adult individuals were removed from a burial site in Schoenbrunn, in Tuscarawas County, OH. The human remains are a collection of modified (drilled) human phalanges from a “mound coffin” (A4213/1). As the remains were modified, they were originally reported as objects. Initially, the human remains were mistakenly reported as having been removed from a different site (A4487); their provenance was correctly identified in 2013. No known individuals were identified. As Schoenbrunn was founded by the Moravian Church in 1772-1777, as a mission to the Delaware Indians, these human remains are affiliated to the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. No associated funerary objects are present.
Either in the 1920s or the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were probably removed from Gnadenhutten, in Tuscarawas County, OH. Although the human remains lack documentation, William C. Mills was in the area of Gnadenhutten during his excavations at Schoenbrunn, and these human remains were found mixed with the Schoenbrunn human remains. It is probable that the material comes from this time period. Alternatively, the human remains could have been excavated in the 1960's prior to the property being given to the Village of Gnadenhutten. The remains represent three adults (A4578/1, 3 and 5) and one child (A4578/1.01). No known individuals were identified. The 13 associated funerary objects are one small mammal mandible fragment (A4578/2, found with A4578/1), nine miscellaneous animal bone fragments (A4578/4 found with A4578/3) and three pottery sherds (A4578/6 found with A4578/5). As Gnadenhutten has strong historic ties to the Delaware Tribe, these human remains and associated funerary objects are affiliated with the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma.
Officials of the Ohio History Connection have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of nine individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the thirteen objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Delaware Tribe, Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Bradley Lepper, Ohio History Connection, 800 East 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (614) 298-2064, email
The Ohio History Connection is responsible for notifying the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma, and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The American Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the American Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the American Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by January 7, 2016.
Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, telephone (201) 876-4194, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas).
In 1914, human remains representing, at minimum, 37 individuals were removed from Pueblo San Pedro Viejo, in Bernalillo County, NM during Nels C. Nelson's excavations sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History. A total of 13 individuals were removed from the South Ruin, including 4 adult females, 1 possible adult female individual, 2 adults of unknown sex, 3 sub-adults of unknown sex, and 3 individuals of unknown age and sex. A total of 23 individuals were removed from the North Ruin, including 3 adult males, 3 possible adult males, 2 adult females, 3 possible adult female individuals, 7 adults of unknown sex, and 5 sub-adults of unknown sex. No provenience information was available for 1 adult female individual. No known individuals were identified. The 3 associated funerary objects are 1 complete ceramic redware bowl, 1 reconstructed ceramic polychrome bowl, and 1 mostly complete ceramic grayware jar.
These remains, which have not been directly dated, have been identified as Native American based on archeological context and associated funerary objects. This Ancestral Pueblo village, more commonly known as Paak'u, includes multiple components that date from Pueblo IV (A.D. 1300-1425) (Tano Basin, Santa Fe Phase), and from Spanish Contact/Colonial (A.D. 1525) to the Pueblo Revolt (A.D. 1692) (Tano Basin, Glaze E Phase). The pueblo was abandoned before 1680. Based on oral traditions and expert opinion that Paak'u was an ancestral site to the Pueblos of Kewa, San Felipe and Santa Ana, the weight of evidence supports affiliation with Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico, Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico, and Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico.
Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 37 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 3 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico, Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico, and Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, (201) 876-4194, email
The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas), Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico, and Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council has completed an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and the associated funerary object and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and the associated funerary object should submit a written request to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. If no additional requestors come forward,
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and the associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council at the address in this notice by January 7, 2016.
James L. Jones, Jr., Cultural Resource Specialist, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 113 2nd Avenue NW., Suite 110A, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 209-7916.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object under the control of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Bemidji, MN. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from an unknown site on the Columbia River, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation; and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
In 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location on the Columbia River, WA. The human remains were sent by the collector to Albert Jenks, a University of Minnesota professor. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a glass bottle filled with gold-bearing black sand from the Columbia River.
The information that accompanied the human remains and associated funerary object indicated that the human remains and associated funerary object were removed from a site along the Columbia River in Washington State. Based on osteological evidence, oral tradition, archeological and geographical evidence for the Columbia Plateau from the prehistoric through the historic times along with consultation with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation; and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, the remains have been determined to be Native American.
Officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation); Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation; and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to James L. Jones, Jr., Cultural Resource Specialist, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 113 2nd Avenue NW., Suite 110A, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 209-7916, by January 7, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation); Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation; and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, may proceed.
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation); Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation; and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.
30-day Notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under subpart K,
You must submit comments by January 7, 2016.
Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
• Electronically go to
• Email
Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to
Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations “to provide for the prevention of waste, and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and to include provisions “for the prompt and efficient exploration and development of a lease area.”
Section 1334(g)(2) states “. . . the lessee shall produce such oil or gas, or both, at rates . . . to assure the maximum rate of production which may be sustained without loss of ultimate recovery of oil or gas, or both, under sound engineering and economic principles, and which is safe for the duration of the activity covered by the approved plan.”
In addition to the general authority of OCSLA, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has delegated some of the authority under FOGRMA to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 30 U.S.C. 1751 is included as additional authority for these requirements.
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, BSEE is required to charge the full cost for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those that accrue to the public at large. Several requests for approval required in Subpart K are subject to cost recovery and BSEE regulations specify service fees for these requests.
Regulations implementing these responsibilities are among those delegated to BSEE.
Responses are mandatory or are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. BSEE protects information considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR part 250.197,
The information collected under Subpart K is used in our efforts to conserve natural resources, prevent waste, and protect correlative rights, including the Federal Government's royalty interest. Specifically, BSEE uses the information to:
• Evaluate requests to burn liquid hydrocarbons and vent and flare gas to ensure that these requests are appropriate;
• determine if a maximum production or efficient rate is required; and,
• review applications for downhole commingling to ensure that action does not result in harm to ultimate recovery.
We collect the information required under this Subpart for reservoir, reserves, and conservation analyses, including the determination of maximum production rates (MPRs) when necessary for certain oil and gas completions and to evaluate the results of well tests to determine if reservoirs are being depleted in a manner that will lead to the greatest ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons.
The current subpart K regulations also specify the use of forms BSEE-0126
Under BSEE-0128, we use this information to evaluate the results of well tests to determine if reservoirs are being depleted in a manner that will lead to the greatest ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons. This information is collected to determine the capability of hydrocarbon wells and to evaluate and verify an operator's approved maximum production rate if assigned. The form was designed to present current well data on a semiannual basis to permit the updating of permissible producing rates, and to provide the basis for estimates of currently remaining recoverable gas reserves.
To comply with the public consultation process, on August 27, 2015, we published a
In response to the comment that “BSEE is still in the paper collection and data entry paradigm” regarding the Well Potential Test Report (Form BSEE-0126) and the Semiannual Well Test Report (Form BSEE-0128), we offer the following. Regarding the Semiannual Well Test Report, starting in 2009, we strongly encouraged operators to submit the data electronically as there is no regulatory authority to require electronic submittals. BSEE estimates that 40-50 percent of this data is currently submitted electronically. When submitted electronically, there is obviously no need for a public information copy. BSEE continues to encourage operators to submit this data electronically. Regarding the Well Potential Test Report, they are not currently submitted electronically because in addition to the form, structure maps, well log sections, and other proprietary data are attached as part of the submittal. Therefore, it would not be efficient to have operators submit the data on the form separate from the structure maps, etc. BSEE does agree that a long term solution could be to have all such data submitted electronically and will continue to pursue.
In response to the comment that we should “streamline the reporting as to reduce the burden to the oil and gas companies”, if we did not collect the information required in this subpart, BSEE would be unable to effectively carry out: The mandate of the OCS Lands Act, administer the offshore program, and promote and ensure the safety of the environment and personnel working on the OCS.
In response to the comment, “the oil and gas companies should only be required to report oil and gas production and operations to one office. This will reduce the reporting requirements and costs to the companies and those savings, should hopefully be passed upon to the consumers. Therefore, BSEE and BOEM should have one central point of contact to receive information from the oil and gas companies. Duplicative reporting should be avoided”. Our response, BSEE agrees that duplicative reporting should be avoided. There is no one central reporting location for both BSEE
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before February 8, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 26, 2015, Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials, Inc., Pharmaceutical Service, 25 Patton Road, Devens, Massachusetts 01434 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes controlled substances:
The company plans to utilize this facility to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances in bulk and to conduct analytical testing in support of the company's primary manufacturing facility in West Deptford, New Jersey. The controlled substances manufactured in bulk at this facility will be distributed to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Cambrex Charles City applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Cambrex Charles City registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated August 21, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Cambrex Charles City to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for internal use, and to manufacture bulk intermediates for sale to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Cody Laboratories, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Cody Laboratories, Inc. registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated August 10, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Cody Laboratories, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import narcotic raw materials for manufacturing and further distribution to its customers. The company is registered with the DEA as a manufacturer of several controlled substances that are manufactured from poppy straw concentrate.
The company plans to import an intermediate form of tapentadol (9780), to bulk manufacturer tapentadol for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before February 8, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/OD/D, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearing should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 2, 2015, AMRI Rensselaer, Inc., 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development and for distribution to its customers.
In reference to drug code 7360 (marihuana), and 7370 (THC), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
On November 20, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in the lawsuit entitled
Defendants leased property where mining operations took place at the Tar Creek Site. The proposed settlement resolves the United States' claims and the claims of the State of Oklahoma on behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality against The Doe Run Resources Corporation (“Doe Run”) and NL Industries Inc. (“NL”) under Section 107 of CERCLA for recovery of response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Doe Run will pay $3,433,137 and NL will pay $6,603,590 to resolve the United States' claims. Doe Run and NL will pay $62,000 and $225,000 respectively to resolve the claims of the State. In addition, the Settling Federal Agency (the Department of the Interior) is resolving its CERCLA liability at the Site by paying $5.0 million.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the 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 Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $16.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of proposed revisions to an existing Privacy Act system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is issuing public notice of its proposal to modify a previously noticed system of records as set forth below under the caption
Submit comments within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The changes will take effect at the end of that period, if no adverse comments are received.
Patti F. Stockman, Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 358-4787,
NASA Privacy Act Officer, Patti F. Stockman, (202) 358-4787,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its biennial System of Records review, NASA proposes to modify its existing Standards of Conduct Counseling system of records. Specifically, the existing system of records, Standards of Conduct Counseling Case Files/NASA 10SCCF, is being modified to add a word to the SORN title, making it “Ethics Standards of Conduct Counseling Case Files;” clarify the Categories of Individuals on whom records are maintained; correct an Authority citation; add a Purpose section; update the System Manager and Safeguards sections; and provide minor refinements of Routine Uses and Retention and Disposal sections.
Ethics Standards of Conduct Counseling Case Files.
None.
Locations 1 through 11 inclusive, and Location 18, as set forth in Appendix A.
This system maintains information on current, former, and prospective NASA employees who have sought advice or have been counseled regarding conflict of interest rules and other Government ethics requirements for Federal employees.
Depending upon the nature of the problem, information collected may include employment history, financial data, and information concerning family members.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a); 44 U.S.C. 3101; 18 U.S.C. 201, 203, 205, 207-209; 5 U.S.C. 7324-7327; 5 U.S.C. Appendix; 14 CFR part 1207; 5 CFR parts 2634-2641; 5 CFR part 6901; and Executive Order 12674, as modified by Executive Order 12731.
Records in this system are used to enable ethics officials to render advice and legal determinations to NASA employees and detailees to assure compliance with these acts and to preserve and promote the integrity of public officials and institutions.
Any disclosures of information will be compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the information. Information from these records may be disclosed: (1) To the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Government Ethics, and Merit Systems Protection Board for investigation of possible violations of standards of conduct which the agencies directly oversee; and (2) in accordance with NASA standard routine uses for all of NASA's systems of records as set forth in Appendix B.
Records in this system are maintained in paper form in loose-leaf binders or file folders, and in electronic media, including NASA's Ethics Program Tracking System (EPTS).
Records are retrieved from the system by name of individual.
Non-electronic records are secured in locked rooms or locked file cabinets to which only persons authorized by the General Counsel, Agency Counsel for Ethics, or Center Chief Counsel have access. Electronic records are maintained on secure NASA servers and protected in accordance with all Federal standards and those established in NASA regulations at 14 CFR 1212.605 and applicable NASA policy. Additionally, the Agency employs infrastructure encryption technologies in data transmission between servers and data management environments therein.
Records are maintained in Agency files and destroyed in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedules, Schedule 1, Item 133.
System Manager: Agency Counsel for Ethics, General Law Practice Group, Location 1. Sub-system Managers: Chief Counsel, Locations 2 through 11, and Counsel to the Executive Director, Location 18, as set forth in Appendix A.
Information may be obtained from the System Manager.
Requests from individuals should be addressed to the System Manager and must include employee's full name and NASA Center where employed.
The NASA regulations and procedures for access to records and for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear at 14 CFR part 1212.
Information collected directly from individual and from his/her official employment record.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room.
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to the Goddard Space Flight Center. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ms. Briana E. Horton, via email at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
On September 22, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
On September 22, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from November 10, 2015, to November 23, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on November 24, 2015.
Comments must be filed by January 7, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed February 8, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0269 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0269, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC's regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by December 28, 2015. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by January 25, 2016.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, Required Actions and CTs [Completion Times (CTs)] associated with risk informed technical specifications and does not involve changes to the plant, its modes of operation, or TS mode applicability. The proposed license amendment references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline [probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)] risk metrics specified in the NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed by regulatory commitments will be
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, Required Actions and CTs associated with risk informed technical specifications. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant and does not involve installation of new or different kind of equipment. The proposed license amendment references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline PRA risk metrics specified in the NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed by regulatory commitments will be implemented under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 without the need for prior NRC approval. The proposed change does not alter the accident mitigation functions of the affected SSCs and does not introduce new or different SSC failure modes than already evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the risk levels associated with inoperable equipment within the scope of the RICT program are assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC approved RICT Program. The proposed change implements a risk-informed Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new specifications and the CRMP considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS. In this regard, the implementation of the CRMP is considered an improvement in safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) emergency action levels (EALs) do not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from accidents previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission product barriers (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to TS 6.9.1 .8.b permit the use of the recent supplements to the appropriate methodologies to analyze accidents to ensure that the plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed changes to the list of NRC-approved methodologies listed in TS 6.9.1.8.b has no impact on plant operation and configuration. The list of methodologies in TS 6.9.1.8.b does not impact either the initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its consequences.
The revised [small-break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA)] analysis demonstrates [Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2)] continues to satisfy the 10 CFR 50.46 ECCS [emergency core cooling system] performance acceptance criteria using an NRC-approved evaluation model.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. There is no change to the design function or operation of the plant. The proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different accident due to credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not previously considered. There is no change to the parameters within which the plant is normally operated, and thus, the possibility of a new or different type of accident is not created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated within the [final safety analysis report (FSAR)].
3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. Approved methodologies will be used to ensure that the plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Duke Energy will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Exelon has evaluated the proposed change to the affected sites' Emergency Plans and determined that the change does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration. In support of this determination, an evaluation of each of the three (3) standards, set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” is provided below.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed change does not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed change will have no impact on any safety-related Structures, Systems, or Components. The proposed change only affects the administrative aspects of the annual ERO requalification training frequency requirements and not the content of the training.
The proposed change would revise the ERO requalification frequency from an annual basis to once per calendar year not to exceed 18 months between training sessions as defined in the Exelon Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plans for the affected plants. The proposed change would align the Exelon fleet under one standard regarding the annual requalification training frequency of personnel assigned Exelon ERO positions.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan requalification training frequency for the affected sites does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change has no impact on the design, function, or operation of any plant systems, structures, or components. The proposed change does not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed change only affects the administration aspects of the annual emergency response organization requalification training frequency requirements. There are no changes in the content of the training being proposed. The proposed change is to align the Exelon fleet under one standard regarding the annual requalification training frequency of personnel assigned Exelon ERO positions.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan requalification training frequency for the affected sites does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed change to the frequency in the ERO requalification training requirements. The proposed change only affects the administrative aspects of the annual ERO requalification training frequency requirements and does not change the training content.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan requalification training frequency for the affected sites does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for testing the HPCI System and the RCIC System at a lower pressure value do not affect the ability of the systems to perform their design functions. Testing at a lower pressure prevents unnecessary reactivity and reactor pressure perturbations and is considered to be conservative with respect to proving operability of these systems.
The revision to the SLC system SR 3.1.7.10 and deletion of the SPS and DWS sub-system SRs 3.6.2.4.3 and 3.6.2.5.3 do not affect the ability of these systems to perform their design functions. These proposed changes are administrative in nature and have no effect on plant operation.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect plant operations, design functions or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures and components to perform their design functions. Performances of the involved SRs are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for testing the HPCI System and the RCIC System at a lower pressure value do not alter the system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant; and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
The revision to the SLC system SR 3.1.7.10 and deletion of the SPS and DWS sub-system SRs 3.6.2.4.3 and 3.6.2.5.3 are administrative in nature and have no effect on plant operation. These proposed changes do not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant.
These proposed changes do not introduce any new accident initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant system, structure, or component to perform their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for testing the HPCI System and the RCIC System at a lower pressure value do not affect the ability of the systems to perform their design functions. Testing at a lower pressure prevents unnecessary reactivity and reactor pressure perturbations and is considered to be conservative with respect to proving operability of these systems. The revision to the SLC system SR 3.1.7.1 O and deletion of the SPS and DWS sub-system SRs 3.6.2.4.3 and 3.6.2.5.3 are administrative in nature and have no effect on plant operation. The HPCI, RCIC, SLC and RHR systems will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of the revised and retained SRs. The proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory requirements regarding the content of plant TS.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the diverse actuation system (DAS) conform to the DAS fire-induced spurious actuation (smart fire) of the squib valves and single point failure criteria. The DAS is a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the safety-related protection and safety monitoring system (PMS). The proposed changes do not involve any accident initiating component/system failure or event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The affected equipment does not adversely affect or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not alter the performance of the DAS as a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the PMS. The new configuration within two independent and separate processor cabinets located in the Auxiliary Building do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment or function, therefore no new accident initiator or failure mode is created. The changes to provide independent power supplies to the separate processor cabinets do not have any impact on any safety-related equipment or function, and no new accident or failure mode is created. The proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could lead to a radioactive release. The changes do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment or structure. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not affect any safety-related equipment or function. The proposed changes do not have any adverse effect on the ability of safety-related structures, systems, or components to perform their design basis functions. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the diverse actuation system (DAS) conform to the DAS fire-induced spurious actuation (smart fire) of the squib valves and single point failure criteria. The DAS is a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the safety-related protection and safety monitoring system (PMS). The proposed changes do not involve any accident initiation component/system failure or event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The affected equipment does not adversely affect or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not alter the performance of the DAS as a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the PMS. The new configuration within two independent and separate processor cabinets located in the Auxiliary Building do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment or function, therefore no new accident initiator or failure mode is created. The changes to provide independent power supplies to the separate processor cabinets do not have any impact any safety-related equipment or function, and no new accident or failure mode is created. The proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could lead to a radioactive release. The changes do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment or structure.
Therefore, the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not affect any safety-related equipment or function. The proposed changes do not have any adverse effect on the ability of safety-related structures, systems, or components to perform their design basis functions. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commissions related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated November 9, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated November 19, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that it will convene an evidentiary hearing on January 11, 2016, to receive testimony and exhibits regarding license amendments issued to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) that increase the temperature limit for the cooling canals at Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, located near Homestead, Florida.
This proceeding concerns the cooling canal system (CCS) at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, which provides a heat sink for the plant's safety systems.
The cooling canals approached the water temperature limit in July 2014, leading FPL to request license amendments to raise the limit to 104 degrees Fahrenheit.
On March 23, 2015, the Board granted CASE's hearing request and admitted one of its four proffered contentions.
The NRC's environmental assessment, in support of its finding of no significant impact related to the 2014 Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 license amendments, does not adequately address the impact of increased temperature and salinity in the CCS on saltwater intrusion arising from (1) migration out of the CCS; and (2) the withdrawal of fresh water from surrounding aquifers to mitigate conditions within the CCS.
After admitting this contention, the Board ruled that the procedures of Subpart L will be used for this proceeding.
The evidentiary hearing will commence on Monday, January 11, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. EST and continue through Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. EST, unless the Board concludes the hearing earlier. The evidentiary hearing will take place at the: Hampton Inn & Suites—Miami South/Homestead, 2855 NE 9th Street, Homestead, Florida 33033.
Members of the public and the media are welcome to attend and observe the evidentiary hearing, which will involve technical, scientific, and legal questions and testimony. Participation in the hearing, however, will be limited to the parties, their representatives, and their witnesses. Please be aware that security measures will be employed at the entrance to the hearing location, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases, backpacks, or purses. In accordance with NRC policy, no signs, banners, posters, or other displays will be permitted inside the hearing room.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.315(a), any person (other than a party or the representative of a party to this proceeding) may submit a written statement, known as a limited appearance statement, setting forth a position on matters of concern related to this proceeding.
Although these statements are not considered testimony or evidence, and are not made under oath, they nonetheless may assist the Board or the parties in considering the issues in this proceeding.
Written limited appearance statements must be submitted by January 15, 2016, and should be sent by mail, fax, or email to both the Office of the Secretary and the Chairman of this Licensing Board:
Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection, physically at the NRC's Public Document Room or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
It is so
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of one amendment request. The amendment request is for Duane Arnold Energy Center. The NRC proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Comments must be filed by January 7, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 8, 2016. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0260 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0260, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of an amendment containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by February 8, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by February 8, 2016.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to the license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on obtaining information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments,” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the TS by replacing the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure and temperature (P-T) limit curves with references to the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). The requested amendment would also adopt Licensing Topical Report (LTR) BWROG-TP-11-022, Revision 1, “Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,” for the preparation of new DAEC P-T curves developed for all plant conditions at 54 effective full power years (EFPY). 10 CFR 50 Appendix G establishes requirements to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in nuclear power plants. Implementing the NRC-approved methodology for calculating P-T curves and relocating those P-T curves from the TS to the PTLR provide an equivalent level of assurance that RCPB integrity will be maintained as specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix G.
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor do they require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident precursors, nor do they impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. RCPB integrity will continue to be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G; therefore, the assumed accident performance of plant structures, systems and components will not be affected. The proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions during and following postulated accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the function of the RCPB or its response during plant transients. By calculating the P-T curves using NRG-approved methodology, adequate margins of safety relating to RCPB integrity are maintained. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which the safety limits are determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. The operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 35 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), and South Carolina Public Service Authority (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
December 8, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ruth Reyes, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
The NRC is granting an exemption from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in part 52 of title 10 of the
(1) Installation of an additional non-safety-related battery;
(2) Revision to the annex building internal configuration by converting a shift turnover room to a battery room, adding an additional battery equipment room, and moving a fire area wall;
(3) Increase in the height of a room in the annex building; and
(4) Increase in thicknesses of certain annex building floor slabs.
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15254A216.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15254A203 and ML15254A207, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15254A197 and ML15254A200, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated December 4, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated July 23 and August 27, 2015, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (licensee) requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified Design Control Document (DCD) incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 13-22, “Annex Building Structure and Layout Changes.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15254A216, the Commission finds that:
A. the exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption, and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, to allow deviations from the certified DCD Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 and Figure 3.3-11A, as described in the licensee's request dated December 4, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated July 23 and August 27, 2015. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 35, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15254A216), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated December 4, 2014. The licensee supplemented this request by the letters dated July 23 and August 27, 2015. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The NRC staff has found that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on December 4, 2014, and supplemented by the letters dated July 23 and August 27, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on October 22, 2015, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML15254A194).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
December 10, 2015 Council Meeting.
The Hispanic Council on Federal Employment (Council) meeting will be held on Thursday, December 10, 2015 at the location shown below from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The Council is an advisory committee composed of representatives from Hispanic organizations and senior government officials. Along with its other responsibilities, the Council shall advise the Director of the Office of Personnel Management on matters involving the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of Hispanics in the Federal workforce. The Council is co-chaired by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA).
The meeting is open to the public. Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown below if you wish to present material to the Council at any of the meetings. The manner and time prescribed for presentations may be limited, depending upon the number of parties that express interest in presenting information.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW., Executive Conference Room, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20415.
Sharon Wong, Deputy Director, Policy & Coordination for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW., Suite 5H35, Washington, DC 20415. Phone (202) 606-0020 FAX (202) 606-6012 or email at
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) intends to issue an order or orders, pursuant to Section 203(h) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”), cancelling the registrations of the investment advisers whose names appear in the attached Appendix, hereinafter referred to as the registrants.
Section 203(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission finds that any person registered under Section 203, or who has pending an application for registration filed under that section, is no longer in existence, is not engaged in business as an investment adviser, or is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section 203A, the Commission shall by order, cancel the registration of such person.
The registrants listed in the Appendix either have not filed a Form ADV amendment with the Commission as required by rule 204-1 under the Act and appear to be no longer in business as investment advisers, or have indicated on Form ADV that they are no longer eligible to remain registered with the Commission as investment advisers but have not filed Form ADV-W to withdraw their registration. Accordingly, the Commission believes that reasonable grounds exist for a finding that these registrants are no longer in existence, are not engaged in business as investment advisers, or are prohibited from registering as investment advisers under section 203A of the Act, and that their registrations should be cancelled pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act.
Notice is also given that any interested person may, by Monday, December 28, 2015, at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request for a hearing on the cancellation of a registrant, accompanied by a statement as to the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for such request, and the issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and the writer may request to be notified if the Commission should order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be addressed: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549.
At any time after Monday, December 28, 2015, the Commission may issue an order or orders cancelling the registrations of any or all of the registrants listed in the Appendix, upon the basis of the information stated above, unless an order or orders for a hearing on the cancellation shall be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who requested a hearing, or to be advised as to whether a hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements thereof. Any adviser whose registration is cancelled under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).
For further information contact: Jamie Lynn Walter, Senior Counsel at 202-551-6999 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Adviser Regulation).
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 132—Equities to delete Supplementary Material .40 requiring members effecting transactions on the equities trading Floor (the “Trading Floor”) to submit certain data elements and badge information and to make a conforming change. 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 amend Rule 132—Equities (“Rule 132”) to delete Supplementary Material .40, which requires members to submit certain data elements and badge information for transactions effected on the Trading Floor and to make a conforming change.
Rule 132 requires clearing member organizations submitting a transaction to comparison to include the audit trail data elements set forth in Supplementary Material .30, including a specification of the account type for which the transaction was effected according to defined account categories. Consistent with this requirement, Supplementary Material .40 requires members
The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 132.40 as obsolete. Rule 132.40 was
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 476A, which sets forth the list of rules under which a member organization or covered person may be subject to a fine in lieu of the Exchange commencing a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 476. Rule 476A permits a summary fine for failures to collect and/or submit all audit trail data specified in Rule 132. The Exchange proposes to delete the clause “and/or submit” to reflect elimination of the submission requirement set forth in Supplementary Material .40 of Rule 132. The Exchange believes this proposed change will add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to eliminate obsolete data submission requirements for trades on its Trading Floor.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
• The Commission will consider whether to propose a new rule and amendments to certain proposed forms related to the use of derivatives by registered investment companies and business development companies.
• The Commission will consider whether to propose rules to require disclosure of certain payments made to governments by resource extraction issuers, as mandated by Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On October 19, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Nasdaq proposes to list and trade the Shares under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
The Exchange represents that the Adviser is not a broker-dealer, although it is affiliated with the Distributor, a broker-dealer. The Adviser has implemented a fire wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio. The Exchange represents that the Sub-Adviser is not a broker-dealer and is not affiliated with a broker-dealer.
The Exchange states that the Fund's investment objective is to seek current income and capital appreciation. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by primarily investing in U.S. exchange-traded equity securities (referred to herein as “Equities”
The Exchange states that, to the extent the Sub-Adviser has not identified Equities suitable for investment, the Fund principally will be invested in cash or money market instruments,
The Fund may also determine to lend out portfolio securities that the Sub-Adviser believes to be strong candidates for a short squeeze to short sellers and other market participants for a premium recognized as income.
The Exchange states that the Fund may invest in any type of ETF that is U.S. exchange-traded, including index based ETFs, sector based ETFs, and fixed-income ETFs. The Fund also may invest in closed-end investment companies that are U.S. exchange-traded.
The Fund will not be limited with respect to its investments in any sector or industry, but the Fund will limit investments in a single issuer to no more than five percent of the total assets of the Fund and to no more than five percent of the security's public float. In addition, the Fund will limit its Equities investments to companies with a market capitalization of $250 million or more.
The Fund will be prevented from purchasing more than 3% of an ETF's outstanding shares, unless: (i) The ETF or the Fund has received an order for exemptive relief from the 3% limitation from the Commission that is applicable to the Fund; and (ii) the ETF and the Fund take appropriate steps to comply with any conditions in such order.
The Fund's investments (including investments in ETFs) will not be utilized to seek to achieve a leveraged return on the Fund's net assets.
The Fund will not invest in futures contracts, will not invest in options, will not invest in swaps, and will not invest in other derivative instruments. The Fund also will not invest in leveraged ETFs.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission also believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session
The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service,
BNY, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange's Regular Market Session (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 Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for the Fund. The NAV of the Fund will be calculated by BNY and determined at the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on each day that such exchange is open. The Web site for the Fund will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information.
The Exchange represents that trading in Shares will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in Nasdaq Rule 4120(a)(11) have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. The Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, nonpublic information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. The Exchange states that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also 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 Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities.
(1) The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also the FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how and by whom information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (e) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3under the Act.
(6) The Fund will limit its Equities investments to companies with a market capitalization of $250 million or more.
(7) All Equities and any shares of ETFs or closed-end investment companies held by the Fund will be listed on a U.S. exchange that is a member of the ISG or a party to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
(8) The Fund will not invest in leveraged ETFs.
(9) The Fund will not invest in futures contracts, will not invest in options, will not invest in swaps, and will not invest in other derivative instruments.
(10) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act permitting certain transactions.
Applicants request an order (the “Order”) that would permit certain registered management investment companies to engage in certain primary and secondary market transactions in fixed income instruments on a principal basis (the “Transactions”) with a USB Trading Entity (defined below).
Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (the “Adviser”), Nuveen Investments, Inc. (“Nuveen”), Nuveen All Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund, Nuveen AMT-Free Municipal Income Fund, Nuveen AMT-Free Municipal Value Fund, Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund, Nuveen Build America Bond Fund, Nuveen Build America Bond Opportunity Fund, Nuveen California AMT-Free Municipal Income Fund, Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund, Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2, Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 3, Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund 2, Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund, Inc., Nuveen California Select Tax-Free Income Portfolio, Nuveen Connecticut Premium Income Municipal Fund, Nuveen Core Equity Alpha Fund, Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund, Nuveen Diversified Dividend and Income Fund, Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund, Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2, Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 3, Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Income Fund, Nuveen Dow 30
The application was filed on December 27, 2013, and amended on July 1, 2014, December 8, 2014, May 22, 2015, and October 22, 2015.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 28, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o Richard T. Prins, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036.
Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6915, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each Fund is an open-end or closed-end management investment company registered under the Act and is organized as a business trust or corporation under the laws of Massachusetts, Maryland or Minnesota, or is a series thereof. The Funds have a variety of investment objectives, but each may invest a portion of its assets in fixed-income instruments. “Fixed-income instruments” for purposes of the Order means fixed-income securities and interests in syndicated loans, convertible bonds and convertible preferred stock, as well as money market instruments, such as treasury instruments, commercial paper and certificates of deposit.
2. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Nuveen, a Delaware corporation. The Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). The Adviser acts as investment adviser to the Funds and has oversight over one or more sub-advisers engaged by the Funds.
3. USBNA is a national banking association and a wholly owned subsidiary of USB. USBNA Dealer Division, an internal division of USBNA, engages in bank permitted dealer activities and is exempt from registering as a broker-dealer pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). USBI, a Delaware corporation, is also a wholly owned subsidiary of USB that is registered as a broker-dealer with the Commission under the 1934 Act. Each of USBI, USBNA, USBNA Dealer Division, as well as other affiliates of USB that are controlled (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act) by USB and are registered as broker-dealers or exempt from registration as such (each, a “USB Trading Entity,” and, collectively, the “USB Trading Entities”), may seek to engage in Transactions with the Funds.
4. On December 31, 2010, Nuveen completed its acquisition of a portion of the asset management business of FAF Advisors, Inc. (“FAF Advisors”), a wholly owned subsidiary of USBNA (the “FAF Acquisition”). The open-end funds previously advised by FAF Advisors entered into investment advisory agreements with the Adviser. The Adviser continued to serve as investment adviser to the open-end funds and closed-end funds that it advised prior to the FAF Acquisition.
5. Certain fiduciary account investments maintained by USB Fiduciary in certain of the Funds remain after the FAF acquisition. USB Fiduciary has discretionary authority over, but no pecuniary interest in, such investments. Because of these investments, there may be affiliations between the USB Trading Entities and the Funds.
6. Applicants state that, because of consolidation in the financial services industry, a few major broker-dealers account for a large percentage of the market share in trading in fixed income instruments. Applicants state that the decline in the number of broker-dealers and banks trading in the fixed-income instruments in which the Funds seek to invest and the increasing significance of the few remaining institutions demonstrate the importance to the Funds of their relationships with such entities, including the USB Trading
7. Applicants assert that prohibiting the Funds from engaging in the Transactions with the USB Trading Entities would become increasingly detrimental to the ongoing interests of Fund shareholders by limiting the Funds' access to important trading counterparties that have growing market share in many of the types of instruments that the Funds purchase. Applicants submit that prohibiting the Funds from engaging in Transactions with the USB Trading Entities unnecessarily reduces the opportunities available to the Funds to obtain competitive pricing and execution and to access the markets for particular fixed-income instruments that are available from only a few dealers. Applicants assert that precluding a Fund from trading with a USB Trading Entity may harm the Fund by, among other things, preventing it from obtaining the best pricing, terms and quality of services otherwise available in the market.
8. Applicants, therefore, request the Order, pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act exempting from section 17(a) of the Act
9. The requested relief would include (i) the Funds and any investment company registered under the Act or series thereof, whether now existing or organized in the future, that is advised by the Adviser or by any existing or future entity that is controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser or Nuveen and registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act; (ii) the Adviser; and (iii) the USB Trading Entities;
10. The Order would be available only in circumstances in which the USB Trading Entity might be deemed to be (i) an affiliated person (“first-tier affiliate”), or an affiliated person of a first-tier affiliate (a “second-tier affiliate”) of a Fund solely by reason of a USB Fiduciary,
11. The requested relief would not extend to primary market Transactions in fixed-income instruments, other than repurchase agreements and variable rate demand notes, of which USB or any entity controlled by USB, including any USB Trading Entity, is the primary obligor.
12. Neither USB nor any USB Affiliates control or will control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act), directly or indirectly, Nuveen or the Adviser or any other non-Fund entity under the control of Nuveen (together, the “Nuveen Affiliates”), and neither USB nor any USB Affiliates will exercise, or attempt to exercise, control over any Fund. Applicants state that only the fiduciary account investments in the Owned Funds raise the affiliation issues addressed by the requested relief. Additionally, Nuveen has no beneficial interest in, and will not control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act) directly or indirectly, USB, the USB Trading Entities or any other USB Affiliate.
13. Applicants state that the USB Affiliates will not have any involvement in the Advisers' investment decisions or decisions to engage in Transactions pursuant to the Order, and will not attempt to influence or control in any way the placing by the Adviser of orders, other than in the normal course of sales activities of the same nature that are being carried out during the same time period with respect to unaffiliated institutional clients of the USB Trading Entity, or that existed between the USB Trading Entity and FAF Advisors, if any, prior to the consummation of the FAF Acquisition.
14. Applicants assert that there is substantial internal separation and independent operation of the division of USBNA that maintains fiduciary accounts (“USBNA Fiduciary Division”) and USBNA Dealer Division. USBNA Fiduciary Division is subject to strict fiduciary laws and regulations that require USBNA Fiduciary Division to act solely in the interests of the principals or beneficiaries of the accounts. Applicants represent that
15. USB Fiduciary undertakes to not to exercise any voting power with respect to shares that constitute five percent or more of a Fund's total outstanding voting securities, including in connection with the election of directors/trustees (the “Non-Voting Undertaking”).
1. Section 17(a) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from selling to or purchasing from such company any security or other property and from borrowing money or other property from such company. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company concerned and with the general purposes of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant part, authorizes the Commission to exempt any person or transaction, or any class or classes of persons or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
3. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act, in relevant part, defines “affiliated person” of another person to include: (a) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of such other person; (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned by, controlled, or held with power to vote, by such person; and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other person.
4. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act, in relevant part, defines “control” as “the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company, unless such power is solely the result of an official position with such company.” Section 2(a)(9) also provides that any person who owns beneficially, either directly or through one or more controlled companies, more than 25% of the voting securities of a company shall be presumed to control such company, and that any person who does not so own more than 25% of the voting securities of any company shall be presumed not to control such company.
5. Applicants state that a USB Trading Entity could be deemed to be a first-tier affiliate or a second-tier affiliate of a 5% Fund insofar as fiduciary account investments of five percent or more of an Owned Fund's outstanding voting securities could cause USB Fiduciary to be viewed as owning, controlling or holding with power to vote “voting securities.” Were a USB Fiduciary deemed to be a first-tier affiliate of a 5% Fund, the USB Trading Entities (except for USBNA Dealer Division) would then be deemed to be second-tier affiliates of the 5% Fund. USBNA Dealer Division, on the other hand, could be deemed to be a first-tier affiliate of the 5% Fund. Additionally, a USB Trading Entity could be deemed a first-tier affiliate of a 25% Fund and a second-tier affiliate of the Other Funds.
6. Applicants submit that the primary purpose of section 17(a) is to prevent a person with the power to control or influence a registered investment company from engaging in self-dealing or overreaching, to the detriment of the investment company's shareholders. Applicants submit that the policies which section 17(a) of the Act was meant to further are not implicated in the context of the requested Order because USB and USB Trading Entities are not able to cause a Fund to enter into a Transaction or otherwise influence portfolio decisions by the Adviser on behalf of the Funds. Applicants state that, as a result, no USB Trading Entity is in a position to cause a Fund to enter into Transactions that are not in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Applicants also state that there will be no conflict of interest associated with the Adviser's decision to engage in a Transaction with a USB Trading Entity on behalf of a Fund. Applicants further submit that the conditions to the requested Order provide further protections against any possibility of self-dealing or overreaching by the USB Trading Entities. Therefore, Applicants submit that the Order satisfies the statutory standards for relief.
Applicants agree that the Order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Neither USB nor any USB Affiliates will control any Adviser or any principal underwriters or promoters for the Funds, directly or indirectly, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act, and neither USB nor any USB Affiliates will exercise, or attempt to exercise, control over any Fund. The Order will remain in effect only so long as Nuveen, or another entity not controlling, controlled by or under common control with USB, primarily controls the Adviser. In this regard, pursuant to the Non-Voting Undertaking, USB Fiduciary will not exercise any voting authority that it possesses with respect to shares that constitute five percent or more of any Fund's total outstanding voting securities. Instead, it will delegate to an independent third party that is not affiliated with either USB or any USB Affiliate the voting of such shares.
(2) Neither USB nor any USB Affiliates will directly or indirectly consult with Nuveen or any Nuveen Affiliate, including the Adviser, or any portfolio manager of the Adviser concerning purchase or sale Transactions, or the selection of a broker or dealer for any Transactions placed or to be placed on behalf of a Fund, or otherwise seek to influence the choice of broker or dealer for any Transaction by a Fund, other than in the normal course of sales activities of the same nature that are being carried out during the same time period with respect to unaffiliated institutional clients of the
(3) No officer, director or employee of an Owned Fund will directly or indirectly seek to influence in any way the terms of any Transaction covered by the Order, other than in the normal course of investment activities of the same nature that are being carried out during the same time period with respect to unaffiliated broker-dealers, or that existed between the USB Trading Entity and the Adviser and the Nuveen Sub-Advisers, if any, prior to the consummation of the FAF Acquisition.
(4) Each USB Trading Entity will adopt and implement policies that prohibit the USB Trading Entity from (a) linking any approval or action relating to an Owned Fund to any action by any Fund or by the Adviser relating to any Fund, or (b) using the fiduciary account investments in an Owned Fund as a basis for seeking to persuade any Fund or the Adviser to engage in business with the USB Trading Entity.
(5) The Adviser and the USB Trading Entities, with the assistance of their respective legal/compliance departments, will prepare guidelines for their respective personnel to make certain that Transactions effected pursuant to the Order comply with its terms and conditions, and that the Adviser and the USB Trading Entities maintain an arm's-length relationship. The respective legal/compliance departments of the Adviser and the USB Trading Entities will monitor periodically the activities of the Adviser and the USB Trading Entities, respectively, to make certain that the terms and conditions of the Order are met.
With respect to each Transaction entered into or effected pursuant to the Order on behalf of a Fund:
(1) Each Fund's Board, including a majority of its disinterested directors or trustees, as applicable (“Necessary Majority”), will approve, and the Fund will implement, procedures governing all Transactions pursuant to the Order and the Fund's Board will no less frequently than quarterly review all Transactions conducted pursuant to the Order and receive and review a report (the “Report”), of those Transactions. The Report which will be prepared by the Adviser and reviewed and approved by the Fund's Chief Compliance Officer, will indicate for each Transaction that the terms and conditions of the Order have been satisfied, and will include a discussion of any significant changes in the volume, type or terms of Transactions between the relevant Funds and the USB Trading Entity, the reasons for these changes, and a determination that such changes are appropriate. In addition, annually and prior to entering into a Transaction with a USB Trading Entity that no Fund has previously traded with, the Board will consider (i) whether the level of Transactions with USB Trading Entities is appropriate and (ii) whether continued reliance on the Order in any applicable category of fixed-income instruments is appropriate in light of the need of the Funds to have the USB Trading Entities available as trading counterparties, as evidenced by, among other things, the aggregate market share of the USB Trading Entities in each such category.
(2) For each Transaction, the Adviser will adhere to a “best execution” standard, will consider only the interests of the Fund and will not take into account the impact of the Fund's investment decision on the USB Trading Entity. Before entering into any Transaction, the Adviser will determine that the Transaction is consistent with the investment objective(s) and policies of the Fund and is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
(3) Each Fund will (a) for so long as the Order is relied upon, maintain and preserve in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures and conditions (and any modifications thereto) that are described herein, and (b) maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any Transaction in which the Adviser knows that both a USB Trading Entity and a Fund directly or indirectly have an interest occurs, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each such Transaction setting forth a description of the security purchased or sold by the Fund, a description of the USB Trading Entity's, or affiliated person of the USB Trading Entity's interest or role in the Transaction, the terms of the Transaction, and the information or materials upon which the determination was made that such Transaction was made in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the application.
(4) Except for Transactions involving repurchase agreements and variable rate demand notes, before any secondary market principal Transaction in fixed-income instruments is entered into between a Fund and a USB Trading Entity, the Adviser will obtain a competitive quotation for the same instruments (or in the case of instruments for which quotations for the same instruments are not available, a competitive quotation for Comparable Instruments)
(a)
(b)
(5) With respect to instruments offered in a primary market underwritten, or other primary market, Transaction, the Fund will undertake such purchase from a USB Trading
(6) The commission, fee, spread, or other remuneration to be received by the USB Trading Entities must be reasonable and fair compared to the commission, fee, spread, or other remuneration received by others in connection with comparable transactions involving similar instruments being purchased or sold during a comparable period of time.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 132 to delete Supplementary Material .40 requiring members effecting transactions on the NYSE trading Floor (the “Trading Floor”) to submit certain data elements and badge information and to make a conforming change. 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 amend Rule 132 to delete Supplementary Material .40, which requires members to submit certain data elements and badge information for transactions effected on the Trading Floor and to make a conforming change.
Rule 132 requires clearing member organizations submitting a transaction to comparison to include the audit trail data elements set forth in Supplementary Material .30, including a specification of the account type for which the transaction was effected according to defined account categories. Consistent with this requirement, Supplementary Material .40 requires members
The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 132.40 as obsolete. Rule 132.40 was adopted at a time when manual transactions on the Trading Floor were recorded on paper order tickets. The rule was designed to improve trade documentation and ensure that broker badge information was captured correctly for Crowd trades (
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 9217, which sets forth the list of rules under which a member organization or covered person may be subject to a fine under a minor rule violation plan as set forth in Rule 9216(b). Rule 9217 permits a summary fine for failures to collect and/or submit all audit trail data specified in Rule 132. The Exchange proposes to delete the clause “and/or submit” to reflect elimination of the submission requirement set forth in Supplementary Material .40 of Rule 132. The Exchange believes this proposed change will add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to eliminate obsolete data submission requirements for trades on its Trading Floor.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4245-DR), dated 11/25/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/25/2015, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
Bastrop, Brazoria, Caldwell, Comal, Galveston, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Hays, Hidalgo, Liberty, Navarro, Travis, Willacy, Wilson.
Texas: Atascosa, Bexar, Blanco, Brooks, Burnet, Cameron, Chambers, Ellis, Fayette, Fort Bend, Freestone, Gonzales, Henderson, Hill, Jasper, Jefferson, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Lee, Limestone, Matagorda, Montgomery, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Starr, Tyler, Waller, Wharton, Williamson.
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14549B and for economic injury is 145500.
Department of State.
Notice.
This notice announces the renewal of the charter or the Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services (IPoDS). In accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Committee's charter has been renewed for an additional two years.
The IPoDS Committee comprises members representing mailers, private sector delivery companies, stakeholders in international delivery services or others who are directly affected by international postal operations. In addition, the Committee includes Federal members representing the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the United States Postal Service. Members are appointed by the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. The Committee provides advice to the Department of State with respect to U.S. foreign policy related to international postal services and other international delivery services and U.S. policy toward the Universal Postal Union and other international postal and delivery organizations.
For further information, please contact Ms. Shereece Robinson of the Office of Specialized and Technical Agencies (IO/STA), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at tel. (202) 663-2649, by email at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 30 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before January 7, 2016. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0344 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 30 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Ashbrook, 63, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I certify that Tom Ashbrook has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle with full distance correction.” Mr. Ashbrook reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years, accumulating 3.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Barton, 64, has a retinal hole in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my professional opinion that Mr. Barton has more than sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Barton reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 100,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 46 years, accumulating 5.52 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles per hour.
Mr. Borrowman, 50, has had a chorioretinal scar in his right eye since 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Patient's left visual field compensates well for his right visual field defect and should not have any problems operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Borrowman reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 9 years, accumulating 1.35 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Cornell, 53, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Vision sufficient for commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cornell reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 50,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Dowd, 60, has been blind in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1964. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I certify in my medical opinion that Bruce has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a heavy vehicle under 26,001 as he has for the past twenty years.” Mr. Dowd reported that he has driven straight trucks for 44 years, accumulating 1 million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Connecticut. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gonzalez, 46, has optic atrophy in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “He has been functioning successfully as a commercial driver for many years and nothing has changed to date. He has proven his ability to continue to function as a driver and we believe his vision is adequate for that purposes [
Mr. Gregory, 65, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Stable amblyopia . . . no impact on horizontal or vertical visual field . . . OK to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Gregory, reported that he has driven straight trucks for 44 years, accumulating 4.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gross, 59, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident over 45 years ago. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “I certainly certify that in my professional medical opinion that he has as he has
Mr. Hale, 24, has had a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “The applicant was found to be visually able to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Hale reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class DA CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he was cited for speeding.
Mr. Hall, 47, has had a macular hole in his left eye since 1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my professional and medical opinion, Mr. Steven Hall has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hall reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 234,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 390,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Huddleston, 40 has glaucoma in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I certify in my medical opinion that Mr. Jason Huddleston has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Huddleston reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 208,080 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Luke, 60, has complete loss of vision due to a traumatic incident in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I have no problem with his ability to see adequately to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Luke reported that he has driven straight trucks for 44 years, accumulating 22,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years, accumulating 252,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Mannarino, 68, has had a macular pucker in his left eye since 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “Certify that as per above, pt [
Mr. Mazza, Jr., 35, has had dense anisometropic amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Samuel's visual status is stable and unchanged since I first saw him in 2010, and in my opinion, he is fit to drive a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Mazza reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 110,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 220,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Miller, 59, has had a prosthetic right eye due to ocular melanoma since 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Mr. Miller has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 350,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from West Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Moore, 55, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “This patient has stable longstanding (since childhood) amblyopia in his right eye . . . he has sufficient vision to perform the tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Moore reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 875,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 35,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Mosman, 33, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Mosman's Visual [
Mr. Nichols, 37, had his left eye enucleated due to a traumatic incident in 1993. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my professional opinion that Joshua D [
Mr. Pitts, 61, has vision loss in his left eye due to ocular nerve damage in 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, John Pitts has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Pitts reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 10,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Arizona. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Resh, 24, had an infection and subsequent complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “He has excellent vision in his left eye and should have no difficulty operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Resh reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 84,000 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Roberts, 68, has had macular degeneration in his left eye since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I, Yen Le, OD, certify that Mr. August Roberts have [
Mr. Satterfield, 51, has had toxoplasmosis in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my medical opinion the above-referenced patient does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Satterfield reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 315,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Schmidt, 58, has had a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident at age 11. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Schmidt reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 800,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 900,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Simpson, 54, has had optic nerve atrophy in his right eye since 2012 due to a pituitary tumor. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “He does see well enough to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Simpson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1 year, accumulating 80,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tso, 72, has had a corneal scar in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my professional opinion Mr. Tso has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tso reported that he has driven straight trucks for 56 years, accumulating 3.4 million miles. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and 1 conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 7 mph.
Mr. Turnbow, 61, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Vision is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Turnbow reported that he has driven straight trucks for 41 years, accumulating 1.23 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Urbach, 45, has had a chronic rhegmatagenous retinal detachment in his left eye since 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Urbach possesses sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Urbach reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 1.13 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Weidley, 39, has had optic neuritis in his right eye since 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, you have sufficient vision and experience to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr.Weidley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 640,000 miles. He holds a Class CM operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wells, 65, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I feel Mr. Wells has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle due to the fact that he is able to see 20/20 with both eyes open and has full visual fields in each eye.” Mr. Wells reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 160,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Whitehead, 66, has had hyperopic astigmatism and refractive amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Whitehead is diagnosed with Hyperopic Astigmatism and Refractive Amblyopia [
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
| 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 |