Page Range | 76629-76853 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 76716 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 76690 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting/Correction-Addition of #6 | |
80 FR 76649 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Public Notice Regarding Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction | |
80 FR 76744 - Commission on Care | |
80 FR 76731 - New Jersey Disaster #NJ-00044 | |
80 FR 76728 - West Virginia Disaster #WV-00042 | |
80 FR 76732 - Virginia Disaster #VA-00059 | |
80 FR 76730 - Rhode Island Disaster #RI-00015 | |
80 FR 76728 - New York Disaster #NY-00166 | |
80 FR 76705 - Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards; Request for Recommended Changes | |
80 FR 76704 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Family Self-Sufficiency (MF FSS) Program Escrow Credit Data | |
80 FR 76630 - Repeal of Civil Aviation Regulations | |
80 FR 76730 - National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 76729 - South Carolina Disaster Number SC-00031 | |
80 FR 76668 - Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Countervailing Duty Order | |
80 FR 76729 - Connecticut Disaster #CT-00036 | |
80 FR 76663 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
80 FR 76674 - Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014 | |
80 FR 76728 - Maryland Disaster #MD-00030 | |
80 FR 76743 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce Benefits; Reopening of Comment Period | |
80 FR 76731 - Maryland Disaster #MD-00031 | |
80 FR 76730 - North Carolina Disaster #NC-00069 | |
80 FR 76732 - Puerto Rico Disaster #PR-00026 | |
80 FR 76743 - Proposed Information Collection (Report of Subcontracts to Small and Veteran-Owned Business-VA0896a) Activity: Comment Request | |
80 FR 76740 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for Voith Propulsion Unit | |
80 FR 76739 - Notice of a Buy America Waiver for Proposed Innovative Electronic Platform Track Intrusion System | |
80 FR 76631 - National Language Service Corps (NLSC) | |
80 FR 76708 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
80 FR 76713 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
80 FR 76663 - 9th Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference in Vienna, Austria; September 18-21, 2016 | |
80 FR 76665 - Third Japan-U.S. Decommissioning and Remediation Fukashima Recovery Forum; February 24-25, 2016 | |
80 FR 76661 - Healthcare Trade and Investment Mission to Peru | |
80 FR 76669 - Safety and Security Trade Mission to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; November 12-18, 2016 | |
80 FR 76670 - Information and Communication Technology Trade Mission to Turkey; November 28, 2016-December 1, 2016 | |
80 FR 76672 - U.S. Education Mission to Central America: Panama and Honduras (Optional Stop to Guatemala) | |
80 FR 76660 - Trade Mission to Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina in Conjunction With Trade Winds-Latin America Business Forum | |
80 FR 76658 - Renewable Energy Trade Mission to Mexico; May 16-19, 2016 | |
80 FR 76666 - Transportation Technologies, Equipment & Systems Trade Mission to Turkey; September 26-30, 2016 | |
80 FR 76657 - Subsea and Onshore Technology Trade Mission to Brazil; October 19-21, 2016 | |
80 FR 76671 - U.S. Safety and Security Trade Mission to the Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) | |
80 FR 76656 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Wisconsin Advisory Committee To Discuss a Forthcoming Draft Report on Hate Crime in the State, and Begin Consideration of Additional Civil Rights Topics for Future Committee Consideration | |
80 FR 76655 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights To Hear Testimony Regarding Civil Rights Concerns Relating to School Disciplinary Policies and Their Potential Impact on Disparities in Juvenile Incarceration in Indiana | |
80 FR 76715 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 76712 - The Standard on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
80 FR 76710 - Notice of Filing of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | |
80 FR 76654 - Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Determination of Whether To Conduct a Referendum Regarding the 1990 Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act | |
80 FR 76629 - Commerce Control List Overview and the Country Chart | |
80 FR 76702 - Viral Hepatitis Action Plan-Community Stakeholder Activities Request for Information | |
80 FR 76629 - The Commerce Control List | |
80 FR 76629 - Articles Conditionally Free, Subject to a Reduced Rate, etc. | |
80 FR 76629 - Pay Under the General Schedule | |
80 FR 76681 - Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, Intent To Waive Parts of the Pre-Filing Three Stage Consultation Process, and Intent To Waive Scoping and Establish an Expedited Schedule for Processing | |
80 FR 76683 - Merced Irrigation District; Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Merced River and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Projects | |
80 FR 76683 - Chevron Products Company, HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC, US Airways, Inc., Valero Marketing and Supply Company, and Western Refining Company, L.P. v. SFPP, L.P.; Notice of Complaint | |
80 FR 76683 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
80 FR 76684 - Notice of Technical Conference | |
80 FR 76682 - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. All Jurisdictional Sellers of Energy and/or Capacity at Wholesale Into Electric Energy and/or Capacity Markets in the Pacific Northwest, Including Parties to the Western Systems Power Pool Agreement; Notice of Filing | |
80 FR 76682 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
80 FR 76679 - Combined Notice Of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 76711 - Comment Request for Form ETA-9141, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination and Other Information Collections for Determining Prevailing Wages in Foreign Labor Certification Programs (OMB Control Number 1205-0508), Extension | |
80 FR 76714 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 76637 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Between Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA | |
80 FR 76742 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in St. Clair and Clinton Counties, Ill. | |
80 FR 76732 - Every Day Counts Initiative; Request for Information | |
80 FR 76736 - Notice of Limitation on Claims Against a Proposed Transportation Project | |
80 FR 76690 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
80 FR 76704 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Extension of an Information Collection | |
80 FR 76744 - Agency Information Collection (Title 38, Parts 51 and 52, State Home Programs) Activities Under OMB Review | |
80 FR 76692 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
80 FR 76690 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
80 FR 76708 - Potassium Phosphate Salts From China | |
80 FR 76714 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
80 FR 76699 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Program for Enhanced Review Transparency and Communication for New Molecular Entity New Drug Applications and Original Biologics License Applications in Prescription Drug User Fee Acts | |
80 FR 76701 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VERAFLOX | |
80 FR 76694 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SIRTURO | |
80 FR 76693 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FULYZAQ | |
80 FR 76696 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ELIQUIS | |
80 FR 76697 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM | |
80 FR 76676 - Emergency Preparedness and Response at the Pantex Plant | |
80 FR 76706 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Nomination of Properties for Designation as National Historic Landmarks | |
80 FR 76677 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of Effectiveness of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Program | |
80 FR 76679 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Client Assistance Program (CAP) | |
80 FR 76710 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act | |
80 FR 76709 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cody Laboratories, Inc. | |
80 FR 76709 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
80 FR 76657 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 37-Orange County, New York; Authorization of Production Activity; Takasago International Corporation (U.S.A.) (Fragrance Compounds), Harriman, New York | |
80 FR 76719 - Alcentra Capital Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application | |
80 FR 76727 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76723 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule | |
80 FR 76724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7620A Relating to FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Fees | |
80 FR 76637 - Wisconsin; Disapproval of Infrastructure SIP With Respect to Oxides of Nitrogen as a Precursor to Ozone Provisions for the 2006 PM2.5 | |
80 FR 76678 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Enterprise Complaint System | |
80 FR 76741 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2012 Fisker Karma Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation | |
80 FR 76703 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
80 FR 76737 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
80 FR 76647 - Conduct on Bureau of Engraving and Printing Property | |
80 FR 76685 - California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines Air Toxics Control Measure; Notice of Decision | |
80 FR 76644 - Final Flood Elevation Determinations | |
80 FR 76655 - Shoshone Resource Advisory Committee | |
80 FR 76649 - Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts | |
80 FR 76640 - Polyester Polyol Polymers; Tolerance Exemption | |
80 FR 76747 - Chartering and Field of Membership Manual |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Engraving and Printing Bureau
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.
CFR Correction
In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 829, in supplement no. 1 to part 774, make the following two corrections:
Items:
a. Linear position feedback units having an overall “accuracy” less (better) than (800 + (600 × L × 10
N.B.: For “laser” systems see also 2B006.b.1.c and d.
(a)
(1) Direct shipment from Haiti or the Dominican Republic to the United States without passing through the territory of any intermediate country;
(2) If shipment is from Haiti or the Dominican Republic to the United States through the territory of an intermediate country, the articles in the shipment do not enter into the commerce of the intermediate country and the invoices, bills of lading, and other shipping documents show the United States as the final destination; or
(3) If shipment is through an intermediate country and the invoices and other documents do not show the United States as the final destination, the articles in the shipment are imported directly only if they:
(i) Remained under the control of the customs authority in the intermediate country;
(ii) Did not enter into the commerce of the intermediate country except for the purpose of a sale other than at retail; and
(iii) Have not been subjected to operations other than loading and unloading, and other activities necessary to preserve the articles in good condition.
(b)
(1) Direct shipment from Haiti to the United States without passing through the territory of any intermediate country;
(2) If shipment is from Haiti to the United States through the territory of an intermediate country, the articles in the shipment do not enter into the commerce of the intermediate country and the invoices, bills of lading, and
(3) If shipment is through an intermediate country and the invoices and other documents do not show the United States as the final destination, the articles in the shipment are imported directly only if they:
(i) Remained under the control of the customs authority in the intermediate country;
(ii) Did not enter into the commerce of the intermediate country except for the purpose of a sale other than at retail; and
(iii) Have not been subjected to operations other than loading and unloading, and other activities necessary to preserve the articles in good condition.
(c)
Department of State.
Final rule.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, which addresses agency review of existing regulations, including those that may be outmoded or ineffective, the Department of State is repealing our regulations on civil aviation. These regulations, which relate to civil aircraft accidents abroad and were promulgated in 1957, are outdated and duplicative of other authorities, including subsequent statutes, regulations, and Department of State guidance, that specify detailed, modern, comprehensive, and effective procedures for dealing with civil aircraft disasters abroad.
This rule is effective December 10, 2015.
Daniel Klimow, Attorney Adviser, Office of Legal Affairs, Overseas Citizen Services, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., SA-17, Washington, DC 20520, (202) 485-6224,
This rule removes 22 CFR part 102, which relates to consular responsibilities regarding an aircraft accident abroad involving U.S. citizens and property. In particular, subpart A of part 102 addresses reporting, rendering assistance, safeguarding wreckage, salvage of diplomatic pouches, protective services for survivors, disposition of remains, preservation of property, limitations on expenditure of funds, and protection of U.S. interests in the case of civil aviation disasters. Subpart B addresses the Department of State's responsibility to report to the President on public comments related to decisions of the now-dissolved Civil Aeronautics Board. The Department of State is repealing part 102 because it is outdated and duplicative of other federal laws, regulations, and guidelines that provide modern, comprehensive, and detailed instructions and information for consular officers dealing with civil aviation disasters abroad involving U.S. citizens, as outlined below.
The Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (AVA), 22 U.S.C. 5501
• 22 U.S.C. 5501(b)(1)(C) directs the Departments of State and Transportation to negotiate agreements to achieve improved availability of passenger manifest information;
• 22 U.S.C. 5503 addresses notification of families of victims and sets a policy of the Department of State, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2715, to directly and promptly notify the families of victims of aviation disasters abroad concerning U.S. citizens directly affected by such a disaster, including timely written notice, notwithstanding notification by any other person;
• 22 U.S.C. 5504 provides that, if possible, in the event of an aviation disaster directly involving U.S. citizens abroad, the Department of State will assign a specific individual and an alternate as the Department of State liaisons for the family of each such U.S. citizen affected, and establish a toll-free communications system to facilitate inquiries concerning the effect of any disaster abroad on U.S. citizens residing or traveling abroad;
• 22 U.S.C. 5505 addresses disaster management training for Department of State personnel;
• 22 U.S.C. 5506 addresses Department of State responsibilities and procedures at international disaster sites and provides, among other items, that not less than one senior officer from the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State shall be dispatched to the site of an international disaster involving significant numbers of U.S. citizens abroad. It also requires the Department of State to promulgate procedures for deployment of crisis response teams to provide on-site assistance to families who may visit the site and to act as an ombudsman in matters involving the foreign local government authorities and social service agencies. Crisis teams may include public affairs, forensic, and bereavement experts, and are to be sent to the site of any international disaster involving U.S. citizens abroad to augment in-country embassy and consulate staff; and
• 22 U.S.C. 5507 addresses recovery and disposition of remains and personal effects, and identifies a Department of State policy to liaise with foreign governments and persons and U.S. air carriers concerning arrangements for the preparation and transport of the remains of U.S. citizens who die abroad, as well as the disposition of their personal effects.
In addition, the Department of State updated and republished the regulations at 22 CFR part 72, entitled Deaths and Estates, in 2007, which provide detailed guidance for consular officials regarding their consular authorities and responsibilities in cases of deaths of U.S. nationals abroad. The regulations apply to deaths that occur in the course of an aircraft disaster, and further address consular reports of death abroad, circumstances and responsibilities for serving as provisional conservator of a deceased U.S. citizen's estate, disposition of remains, taking physical possession of specified personal effects, release of the deceased's personal estate to the estate's legal representative, and disposition of real estate, among other issues. 22 CFR 72.21 and 72.7 impose restrictions on the expenditure of funds and the incurring of financial obligations in connection with deaths and estates of U.S. citizens abroad. 22 CFR 71.6 provides that Foreign Service Officers
Further, the Department of State has adopted detailed, comprehensive guidance in volume seven of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), chapter 1800, on coordinating and managing the federal response to aviation disasters involving U.S. citizens abroad. Specific instructions, operational frameworks, and resources to guide consular officers' responses to aircraft disasters abroad involving U.S. citizens are detailed in 7 FAM 1800 on Consular Crisis Management; 7 FAM 1830 on Aviation and Other Transportation Disasters; 7 FAM 1880 entitled At the Focal Point of a Disaster; and attached appendices, in particular Appendix 7 FAM Exhibit 1830(A), Checklist of Post's Responsibilities in an Aviation Crisis. Additionally 12 FAM, in particular 12 FAM 100 and 500, provide detailed guidance for U.S. government personnel on safeguarding diplomatic pouch shipments generally, including shipments transported by aircraft.
There are other pertinent legal authorities, including the Foreign Air Carrier Family Support Act of 1997, Public Law 105-148, which require foreign air carriers to provide the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) with a plan addressing the needs of the families of passengers on foreign air carriers involved in aviation disasters; the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention), to which the United States is a party and which addresses, among other items, aircraft disaster investigations; and 14 CFR part 243 on passenger manifests.
Subpart B of part 102 established procedures for the receipt by the Department of State of comments from private parties on possible recommendations by the Department of State to the President on decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board submitted for the President's approval under section 801 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which relates to overseas and international air transportation. This responsibility is now with the Department of Transportation. See 49 U.S.C. 41307.
These authorities render 22 CFR part 102 obsolete. It is therefore removed.
This action is being taken as a final rule, with an immediate effective date, pursuant to the “good cause” provision of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). It is the position of the Department of State that notice and comment are not necessary in light of the fact that 22 CFR part 102, repealed by this rulemaking, is obsolete and duplicative of other authorities.
It is hereby certified that the repeal of these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this regulation justify any costs. The Department of State does not consider this rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order. The Department of State has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule does not impose or revise any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Aircraft, Foreign Service.
Accordingly, under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2651a, the Department of State amends 22 CFR chapter I, subchapter K, by removing part 102.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Final rule.
This rule establishes the National Language Services Corps (NLSC) in the Code of Federal Regulations by describing the program and its responsibilities pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Section 954. This Section authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish the NLSC to respond to federal agencies' needs for language skills in emergencies or surge requirements. Once a federal agency identifies a need, NLSC members are advised of the potential assignment. If an individual is interested and available, he or she will go through a screening and selection process as discussed in the rule. The decision to use NLSC rests with the requesting
This final rule is effective on January 11, 2016.
John Demboski, 571-256-0654.
NLSC supports DoD and other U.S. departments or agencies, in need of foreign language services, with requirements of less than one year. This rule outlines NLSC membership criteria, member recruitment, appointment, and activation and describes eligibility requirements for federal employees to participate in NLSC.
In addition to 50 U.S.C. 1913 which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain the National Language Service Corps, 5 U.S.C. 3109 authorizes the employment of experts and consultants on a temporary or intermittent basis; 18 U.S.C. 202 defines “special Government employee;” and 31 U.S.C. 1535 authorizes the head of an agency or major organizational unit within an agency to place an order with a major organizational unit within the same agency or another agency for services.
The Department of Defense and other federal departments and agencies have benefited from NLSC support utilizing high-level language skills of members not otherwise available to meet their organizations' short-term, immediate needs. The NLSC has established a means to access and maintain contact with citizens who are highly skilled in foreign languages who are open to short term employment. Since initial efforts in fiscal year 2007, the average cost per year to build, pilot and fully operationalize the NLSC has been $6.3 million. Current membership includes more than 5,000 members with skills in 315 foreign languages and dialects ready to serve national needs when called upon. Members include the self-employed, retirees and students just entering the workforce, who proudly want to serve their nation. As of June 2014, NLSC members have provided more than 28,000 hours of highly skilled foreign language support to 34 federal agencies and departments and their components.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 authorized the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot on the establishment of a Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps. The pilot, named the National Language Service Corps, assessed the feasibility and advisability of establishing a civilian linguist reserve corps comprised of U.S. citizens with advanced levels of proficiency in foreign languages who would be available to provide foreign language services.
In January 2013, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish the NLSC within the DoD. The NLSC is an activity within the Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO), the responsible DoD activity providing strategic direction and programmatic oversight to the Military Departments, Defense field activities and the Combatant Commands on present and future requirements related to language, regional expertise, and culture.
The NLSC does not offer permanent full-time or part-time jobs. The NLSC responds to federal agencies' needs for language skills in emergencies or surge requirements. For this reason, the NLSC does not maintain any postings or offer any job location services. Once a federal agency identifies a need, NLSC members are advised of the potential assignment. If an individual is interested and available, he or she will go through a screening and selection process as discussed in this rule. The decision to use NLSC rests with the requesting agency, and support agreements must be established before support can begin.
The NLSC's charter is to provide short-term surge capability or to fill short-term recurrent support that other existing capabilities cannot reasonably fill. Members have filled requirements that range from 15 minutes on the phone to 60 days in the field. If needed/desired, it is possible for members to provide recurrent, short-term support, such as for periodic exercises for up to approximately six months (130 work days or 1,040 hours, whichever comes first) in the member's service year.
The NLSC uses the Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency Guidelines (
Initial non-English language proficiency is assessed by asking all NLSC applicants to complete a series of self-assessments to provide an indication of where they fall on the ILR scale. Members of the NLSC will normally undergo formal proficiency testing to verify the self-assessments prior to participating in an assignment. Several factors may require formal proficiency testing, including the need for the NLSC and requesting agencies to have formally-tested members available for assignments.
Initial English language assessment will not normally be conducted for applicants who graduated from an accredited high school and spent at least three years in the US while attending high school. If an individual did not do so, he or she may be asked to undergo the same self-assessment process as for non-English language skills. Finally, a number of members may be asked to undergo formal proficiency testing in English.
On February 24, 2015, the Department of Defense published a proposed rule titled “National Language Service Corps (NLSC)” (80 FR 9669-9673). The public-comment period ended on April 27, 2015. Four public comments were received.
It is important to note that this is a permanent installation of what has already proven to be a successful program. Every step of the program implementation has been meticulously thought out and driven towards the program's ultimate goal. The track record of the NLSC also demonstrates that the program works. The open application process allows those from all backgrounds to apply for NLSC membership, which ensures a wide-range of individuals can become involved. An open application process is conducive in achieving the programs goal of providing government agencies with the individuals with the best language skills when they are needed.
Once they are approved as NLSC members, these individuals will have discretion as to what assignments they take on. Allowing for this level of personal choice will make the person feel that they are truly a part of the process by showing respect for their personal schedule and willingness to
However, there are some areas that lack specificity. For one, a brief description of what “emergencies” or “surge requirements” would clarify exactly what types of situations NLSC forces would be used for. While I understand that this would have to be broad in order to encompass all the different agencies that may use NLSC members, it would be clearer to have explicit general situations laid out in the rule.
Overall I feel that the lack of extensive requirements is a positive thing, I do feel that more information could be sought in terms of criminal background and former employment. Having requirements such as these fleshed out in the actual rules of the program would narrow the number of applicants and thus lend more efficiency in the hiring system. It would also help the overall goal of ensuring well qualified and reputable people are available for the NLSC.
In conclusion, the proposed rule-making the NLSC a permanent program of the Department of Defense is an efficient and well-organized system. The proposed rules on NLSC member recruitment, including the application process, and how the program plans to provide members to the various government agencies are conducive to achieving its overall goal.
Also, NLSC appreciates the commenter's concern regarding background investigations of personnel hired to support the foreign language needs of federal agencies. Reviews for criminal background and former employment are conducted during the process for appointing and activating members in accordance with the DoD, U.S.C. and CFR references identified in § 251.6(d)(3) of the rule. No change to the rule was made based on these comments.
The National Languages Services Corps plays a key role in meeting the demands of our modern globalized society. The United States is involved in parts of the world where language skills may be required at short notice. This organization helps fill the void and retains a reservoir of professional skills that can be invaluable in times of need. Communication with many communities can be very difficult and the National Languages Services Corps creates an organized system ensuring that our nation will be able to promptly addressing any problems that arise.
Retaining professionals on a limited basis is a great cost effective strategy. Tax payers are not burdened by frivolous spending on language experts. They are only hired when their services are needed.
The National Languages Services Corps should be a permanent organization because it is invaluable to Department of Defense's ability respond to emergencies.
Conclusion: Restate your position and summarize how it advances important public interests or interests of the agency, such as the agency's stated goals or the purpose of the statutory scheme that provides the authority for the rule making.
I particularly found that § 251.4(a) lacks specificity. The provision states that the NLSC provides other agencies U.S. citizens with “high level of foreign language proficiency” without specifying what exactly constitutes as “high level proficiency”. As explained in § 251.3, the NLSC relies on Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale to determine language proficiency, out of the scale range 0-5, 4 is recognized as “Advanced Professional Proficiency”, 4+ is “Advanced Professional Proficiency Plus”, and “5” which is the highest level “Functional Native Proficiency”. These terms would cause confusion because there is no further definition that specifies which scale would satisfy the “high level” requirement. While one individual is able to engage fluent day-to-day conversations in a foreign language, he or she might not be able to respond to situations where medical terms, chemical names or even specific legal terms are required. I believe that by specifying the exact level of language proficiency would narrow the application pool and ensure that the agency receives qualified applicants that match the agency needs.
The terms in § 251.6(a)(2) also need to be defined specifically. The NLSC's purpose is to provide foreign language assistance to other agencies with “surge or emergency requirements”. The proposed rule does not further define what requirements are classified as “surge” or “emergency”, my view is that although the agency may want flexibility to interpret “surge or emergency” broadly, but setting a more specific definition of “emergency requirement” would allow the NLSC to efficiently allocate resources in response to classified situations.
The member selection and response procedures in the proposed rule also require elaboration. Once accepted, NLSC members are listed in the registry and the NLSC program manager will search through the registry to find individuals for taking requests. In addition, because the selected individuals will be involved in requests that are highly confidential, I believe that NLSC should also adopt a detailed procedure on an initial background screening process and the periodical background check of the members. I also believe that the NLSC should set forth a detailed response procedure; this would again increase the efficiency and reduce the unnecessary costs when implementing the program.
Overall, I support the idea of having broad interpretations over certain terms in the proposed rule, however, I would also recommend that the NLSC adopts necessary measures to review information or knowledge that can only be obtained post-adoption, which is referred as ex post learning. Because this rule is about to establish NLSC as a permanent program, it is very important that the agency conduct post-adoption review on the program's costs and benefits. Furthermore, the agency could also set contingency on some of the provisions, allowing the agency to adjust the terms and conditions after further research and review of the program.
To conclude, this proposed rule establishing the NLSC a permanent program of the Department of Defense would serve an efficient system that assists other agencies on national level needs. I do think that the rule should be more specific on NLSC member application process, and provide a detailed program plans to provide effective assistance to other government agencies.
The commenter also notes that the terms “surge” and “emergency requirements” are not specifically defined and indicates that an agency may want flexibility to interpret “surge or emergency” broadly, but setting a more specific definition of “emergency requirement” would allow the NLSC to efficiently allocate resources in response to classified situations. As referenced in response to a previous comment, NLSC relies upon requesting agencies to follow their internal guidance to justify the requirement for foreign language services and the expenditure of resources to request support from NLSC.
The commenter notes a concern “that NLSC should also adopt a detailed procedure on an initial background screening process and the periodical background check of the members.” Work performed in support of NLSC must be done as a DoD civilian employee and the associated federal hiring process includes background check and periodic reinvestigations as required for employees with clearances in accordance with the DoD, U.S.C. and CFR references identified in § 251.6(d)(3) of the rule.
Finally, NLSC appreciates the commenter's acknowledgement regarding post-adoption review on the program's costs and benefits. In accordance with 50 U.S.C. 1903, the National Security Education Board will assess effectiveness of the NLSC and for recommend plans to address shortfalls. No changes were made to this rule based on these comments.
The revisions to this rule will be reported in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at:
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
The Department of Defense certifies that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Section 251.6(c)(1) through (3) of this rule contains information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD has submitted an information clearance package to the Office of Management and Budget for review. In response to DoD's invitation in the proposed rule to comment on any potential paperwork burden associated with this rule, no comments were received.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
Foreign languages, Manpower training programs.
5 U.S.C. 3109, 18 U.S.C. 202, 31 U.S.C. 1535, 50 U.S.C. 1913.
This part:
(a) Implements the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense in 50 U.S.C. 1913 by establishing the NLSC program.
(b) Establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for the management of the NLSC program.
(c) Assigns responsibility to the National Security Education Board (NSEB) to oversee and coordinate the activities of the NLSC (as provided and determined by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1903 and 1913 with policy and funding oversight provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) in accordance with DoD Directive 5124.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R))” (available at
This part applies to Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as “the DoD Components”) and federal agencies.
Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.
(1) 0 is No Proficiency.
(2) 0+ is Memorized Proficiency.
(3) 1 is Elementary Proficiency.
(4) 1+ is Elementary Proficiency, Plus.
(5) 2 is Limited Working Proficiency.
(6) 2+ is Limited Working Proficiency, Plus.
(7) 3 is General Professional Proficiency.
(8) 3+ is General Professional Proficiency, Plus.
(9) 4 is Advanced Professional Proficiency.
(10) 4+ is Advanced Professional Proficiency, Plus.
(11) 5 is Functional Native Proficiency.
It is DoD policy that:
(a) The NLSC provides DoD, or other U.S. departments or agencies, with U.S. citizens with high levels of foreign language proficiency for short-term temporary assignments providing foreign language services.
(b) The NLSC is authorized to employ U.S. citizens as language consultants pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1913, 5 U.S.C. 3109, and 5 CFR part 304.
(c) The NLSC is exempt from DoD Instruction 5160.71, “DoD Language Testing Program” (available at
(d) The NLSC will be available to support DoD or other U.S. departments or agencies pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1913.
(e) The NLSC will:
(1) Collect personally identifiable information pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1913 from individuals interested in applying for NLSC membership.
(2) Comply with DoD Instruction 8910.01, “Information Collection and Reporting” (available at
(f) Qualified and available members with requested language skills hired in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 5 CFR part 304 and DoD Administrative Instruction 2, “Employment of Experts and Consultants” (available at
(a) The USD(P&R):
(1) Provides overall policy guidance for carrying out the responsibilities and duties of the Secretary of Defense in accordance with DoD Directive 5124.02 and 50 U.S.C. 1913.
(2) Ensures appropriate resources are programmed for the administration and operation of the NLSC.
(b) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness (ASD(R)):
(1) Through the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education:
(i) Develops processes and polices regarding the NLSC oversight and coordination by the NSEB in accordance with 50 U.S.C. 1903 and 1913.
(ii) Recommends and oversees the establishment and execution of policies, programs, and goals to ensure the NLSC supports the readiness of the Military Services.
(iii) Oversees, and monitors compliance with the NLSC programs and processes on behalf of the Secretary of Defense to include the procedures in § 251.6.
(iv) Ensures that functions needed to support the accomplishment of the NLSC mission are executed, including engagement with DoD Components, federal agencies, and State and local governments to identify language needs, assessment of language proficiency of its members, and skill sustainment training.
(v) Determines eligibility for NLSC membership.
(2) Hosts the annual program review identified in 50 U.S.C. 1913.
(3) Designates a program manager responsible for overseeing implementation of NLSC programs and processes.
(c) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R), the Director, Department of Defense Human Resources Activity (DoDHRA):
(1) Implements procedures and instructions for the appointment of NLSC members in support of DoD or other U.S. departments or agencies.
(2) Authorizes and signs interagency agreements between the NLSC and organizations outside of the DoD, and delegates authority to sign such agreements as needed.
(3) Provides administrative support to the NLSC, including actions related to intra- and inter-agency agreements, the intra- and inter-agency transfer of funds, personnel actions, and travel requirements.
(4) Provides fiscal management and oversight to ensure all funds provided for the NLSC are separately and visibly accounted for in the DoD budget.
(d) DoD Components heads ensure that the use of NLSC members is considered during exercise and operational planning.
(a)
(2) The NLSC will provide capable, federally-hired individuals to rapidly respond to critical national needs and assist DoD and other U.S. departments and agencies with surge or emergency requirements.
(b)
(1) Be a U.S. citizen.
(2) Be at least 18 years of age.
(3) Have satisfied Selective Service requirements.
(4) Be proficient in English and any other language.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1) For federal hiring, members follow excepted service hiring policies in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3109, 5 CFR part 304, and 32 CFR part 310, and are appointed as language consultants in advance of participating in a support request, in accordance with DoD Administrative Instruction 2.
(2) An NLSC member who is already employed by a U.S. Government agency or is under contract full-time to one agency must receive a release from the head of that agency or individual empowered to release the employee or contractor before being employed for service within the NLSC pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1913 and must comply with applicable laws and regulations regarding compensation. Such requests will be coordinated by the NLSC with the department or agency head concerned.
(3) NLSC members will be appointed on an annual basis pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, 5 CFR part 304, and 32 CFR part 310 to perform duties as language consultants. If serving less than 130 days in a consecutive 365-day period, they will be considered SGEs as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. Concurrent appointments as an SGE may be held with other DoD Components or in another federal agency.
(4) The NLSC program manager will track the number of days each NLSC member performed services and the total amount paid to each NLSC member within the 365-day period after the NLSC member's appointment.
(e)
(1) Customer requirements are matched with skills of NLSC members and support is requested from DoDHRA to process necessary agreements, funding documents, and personnel actions to provide foreign language services. In accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section, NLSC members are temporarily hired as DoD employees.
(2) NLSC members are prepared for activation. If members are to be mobilized out of their home area, travel order requests are initiated. During the assignment, action will be taken to coordinate with members and clients, and assess success with the requesting agency upon completion.
(3) If duty requires issuance of DoD identification (
(4) Upon completion of assignments, DoDHRA will provide post-assignment support to members and reconcile funding to close project orders.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington-Bristol Bridge on Route 413, across the Delaware River, at mile 117.8, between Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA. This deviation restricts the operation of the draw span in order to facilitate the replacement of the tender control house. The drawbridge will not be able to open for three days during this project.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on April 1, 2016, to 6 a.m. on April 11, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1013] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Terrance Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at telephone 757-398-6587, email
The Burlington County Bridge Commission, who owns and operates this vertical-lift type drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 117.716 to facilitate the replacement of the Tender control house.
The Burlington-Bristol Bridge on Route 413, at mile 117.8, across the Delaware River, between Burlington NJ and Bristol PA, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 61 feet above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the Burlington-Bristol Bridge will be closed to navigation and unable to open on signal from 6 a.m. Friday April 1, 2016 through Monday April 4, 2016 at 6 a.m. The alternate marine closure weekend period will be Friday April 8, 2016 at 6 a.m. through Monday April 11, 2016 at 6:00 a.m. At all other times, the drawbridge will operate in accordance with the operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.716.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
There are approximately four to six vessels per week from four facilities whose vertical clearance surpasses the closed bridge position, requiring an opening of the draw span. The Coast Guard has coordinated this tender house replacement work with the Delaware Pilots Association and will inform the other users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge, so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is narrowly disapproving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on January 11, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
This rulemaking addresses a January 24, 2011, submission, supplemented on June 29, 2012, from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) intended to address all applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.
This specific rulemaking is only taking action on a the specific infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), which may be satisfied if the state demonstrates that it has a fully approved PSD permitting program that incorporates all federal requirements, including, as relevant here, the requirement to properly regulate NO
The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on September 10, 2015 (80 FR 54468). During the comment period, which ended on October 13, 2015, EPA received a comment from the WDNR. A synopsis of the comment and EPA's response to the comment are provided below.
Comment: WDNR disagrees with the proposed disapproval because the program discussed in the disapproval is currently being implemented by the state and the state is actively working to add the needed elements to its rules. WDNR also comments that EPA previously issued the state a finding of failure to submit for the missing PSD element and more recently issued a disapproval of this element on the same basis in a final action on a separate infrastructure SIP, and argues that a second disapproval is unnecessary.
Response: EPA understands that WDNR is currently implementing the requirement to regulate NO
EPA is disapproving narrow portions of the 2006 PM
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
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).
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves a state rule.
Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.
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 rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, octadecanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, octadecanoate; fatty acids, C
This regulation is effective December 10, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 8, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0465, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0465 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 8, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0465, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
D-Glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, octadecanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, octadecanoate; fatty acids, C
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
7. The polymer's minimum number average molecular weight is greater 1,000 Daltons. The oligomer content is less than 10% (w/w) below a number average molecular weight of 500 and less than 25% (w/w) below a number average molecular weight of 1,000.
Thus, D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, octadecanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, octadecanoate; fatty acids, C
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that these polymers could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number average molecular weight of each of these polymers is 1,100 Daltons. Generally, polymers of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since these polymers conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found that these polymers to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and these polymers does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that these polymers do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of these polymers, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, octadecanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, octadecanoate; fatty acids, C
There are no existing tolerance exemptions for this polymer.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, octadecanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, octadecanoate; fatty acids, C
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, octadecanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, docosanoate; D-glucitol, polymer with decanedioic acid and 1,3-propanediol, octadecanoate; fatty acids, C
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP or Bureau) is amending its regulations in order to remove certain obsolete language, clarify the rules of conduct on the property, and increase the maximum penalty amount permitted for violations to $5,000 in accordance with the United States Code.
Comments must be received no later than February 8, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking according to the instructions below. All submissions must refer to the document title. The Bureau encourages the early submission of comments. Comments may be submitted through one of these methods:
Mark Hoggan, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, by phone at (202) 874-2500.
The mission of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is to develop and produce United States currency notes, trusted worldwide. BEP prints billions of dollars in currency—referred to as Federal Reserve notes—each year for delivery to the Federal Reserve System. Due to the sensitive nature of currency production operations, the Bureau is generally closed to the public. Limited areas of the Bureau, however, are accessible for public tours during certain authorized dates and times. Any individual entering, exiting, or on the Bureau's property is subject to the rules of conduct as prescribed within the regulations and violations may result in criminal prosecution.
This proposed rule would update the Bureau's 1994 (59 FR 41978) regulations that concern conduct on BEP property. The proposal would remove certain obsolete language, clarify the rules of conduct on the property, and increase the maximum penalty amount permitted for violations to $5,000 in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Bureau certifies that no actions were deemed necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Furthermore, these proposed regulations will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and they will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563 calls for public participation and an open exchange of ideas in the regulatory process and seeks regulations that are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. The Bureau has developed these proposed regulations in a manner consistent with these principles.
Federal buildings and facilities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing proposes to amend 31 CFR part 605 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; Delegation, Administrator, General Services, dated December 3, 1992; Treasury Delegation, Assistant Secretary (Management), dated February 4, 1993.
(a)
(b)
(2) Public tours of limited areas of the property are available during such times as the Director may prescribe.
(3) Limited areas of the property may be open to persons authorized by the Director or the Director's designee.
(4) All persons entering and exiting the property may be required to present suitable identification and may be required to sign entry logs or registers.
(5) All persons entering and exiting the property may be subject to screening devices and shall submit to screening upon request by BEP Police or authorized officials.
(6) All persons entering and exiting the property may be subject to inspection of their person, handbags, briefcases, and other handheld articles by BEP Police or authorized officials. All persons on the property may be subject to additional inspection by BEP Police or authorized officials upon entry, exit, and request.
(7) All motor vehicles entering, exiting, or located on the property are subject to inspection of the exterior and interior compartments by BEP Police or authorized officials at any time.
(8) All lockers, cabinets, closets, desks or similar storage areas on the property are subject to inspection by BEP Police or authorized officials.
(9) All computers, data storage devices, and data files owned or controlled by BEP are subject to search or inspection at any time.
(10) Any entrance onto the property without official permission is prohibited.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Possession on the property of any numbers slip or ticket, record, notation, receipt or other writing of a type ordinarily used in any illegal form of gambling, unless explained to the satisfaction of the Director or the Director's designee, shall be evidence of participation in an illegal form of gambling on the property.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(2) The blocking of entrances, driveways, walks, loading platforms, fire hydrants, or standpipes on the property is prohibited.
(3) Parking on the property is not allowed without a permit or authority. Parking without a permit or authority, not in accordance with a permit or authority, or contrary to the direction of BEP Police, authorized officials, and posted signs or notices is prohibited.
(m)
(n)
(o)
(2) Violations of 18 United States Code, Section 930 (dangerous weapon clause) shall be punishable by a fine of $100,000 or imprisonment for not more than a year, or both, unless there is intent to commit a crime with the weapon, in which case the punishment shall be a fine of $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(3) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal, District of Columbia, or Texas law or regulations, or any Tarrant County ordinance applicable to the property.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's proceeding by: Kathleen O'Brien Ham, on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc.; Caressa D. Bennet, on behalf of PBP Group, LLC, Bulloch Cellular, Inc., Pineland Cellular, Inc., and Planters Rural Cellular, Inc.; and A. Wray Fitch, III, on behalf of Walker Broadcasting Company, Inc. T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s petition requests a declaratory ruling in the alternative.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before December 28, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before December 21, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Mark Montano, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0691, email:
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3036, released December 3, 2015. The Petitions are available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.
FMCSA proposes to revise the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) by requiring that passengers in property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) use the seat belt assembly whenever the vehicles are operated on public roads. This rule would hold motor carriers and drivers responsible for ensuring that passengers riding in the CMV are also using the seat belts required by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs).
You may submit comments by January 25, 2016.
Comments to the rulemaking docket should refer to Docket ID Number FMCSA-2015-0396 or RIN 2126-AB87 and be submitted to the Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Charles A. Horan, Director; Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at (202) 366-5370FMCSA office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
FMCSA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2015-0396), 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 that FMCSA can contact you if there are 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 proposed rule based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Section 393.93(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR 393.93) requires every truck and truck tractor manufactured after the early 1970s to comply with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 (49 CFR 571.208), relating to the installation of seat belt assemblies, as well as FMVSS 210, dealing with the installation of seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS 207, addressing seating systems more generally. Under FMVSS 208, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990, are allowed by S4.3.2.1 an option to comply by providing a “complete passenger protection system,” but nearly all CMV manufacturers choose the second compliance option (S4.3.2.2) and install a “belt system.” This second option requires a seat belt assembly “at each designated seating position.” In short, the FMVSS and FMCSRs require seat belts at every seating position in a CMV. In addition, 49 CFR 392.16 requires that a property-carrying CMV which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself or herself with the seat belt assembly. FMCSA proposes to require that passengers riding in property-carrying CMVs also use their seat belts when the vehicle is operated on public roads.
As indicated above, NHTSA requires vehicle manufacturers to install driver and passenger seat belts in large trucks. FMCSA already requires drivers to use their seat belts. However, the FMCSRs are silent on the use of seat belts by passengers. This NPRM would require every passenger to use a seat belt, if one was installed. The cost would be the value of the person's time necessary to buckle the safety belt, which is negligible. The benefits of this rule would be any fatalities or injuries avoided as a result of seat belt use; these benefits are discussed later.
This NPRM is based on the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act). The 1935 Act (49 U.S.C. 31502), authorizes FMCSA to prescribe requirements for the safety of operation and equipment standards of for-hire and private motor carriers. This NPRM is directly related to safe motor carrier operations. The 1984 Act (49 U.S.C. 31136) required FMCSA to adopt regulations to ensure, among other things, that “commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely” (§ 31136(a)(1)). This proposal would increase the safety, not only of passengers, but also of CMV drivers whose control of the vehicle would not be affected by unsecured passengers potentially thrown about the cab as a result of emergency steering or braking maneuvers. A 2012 amendment to the 1984 Act requires FMCSA to ensure that CMV drivers are not coerced to violate certain provisions of the FMCSRs (§ 31136(a)(5)). Given the obvious value of this proposal, and the ease of compliance, the Agency believes that no one will be coerced
This rulemaking responds to a petition submitted by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) on October 29, 2013 (available in the docket to this rulemaking). CVSA requested that FMCSA require all occupants in a property-carrying CMV to restrain themselves when it is being driven. The petition referred to data available from the Agency's Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (available at
Under this proposal the requirements of 49 CFR 392.16 would be revised to include requirements for seat belt usage by passengers in property-carrying CMVs. FMCSA proposes to revise the FMCSRs to prohibit the driving of a property-carrying CMV unless the driver and all other occupants have fastened their seat belts, if the vehicle is equipped with such belts.
Today's proposal responds to CVSA's petition, but has slightly modified some of the petitioner's requests. FMCSA has used the word “occupant” in addition to “passenger” to make clear that the regulation would apply to any person in the property-carrying CMV. “Occupants” would include instructors, evaluators, or any other personnel who might be seated in a property-carrying CMV, regardless of their status. FMCSA also proposes this requirement be applicable only if there is a seat belt assembly installed in the property-carrying CMV.
FMCSA recognizes that section 392.60 prohibits the use of a CMV to transport unauthorized passengers. Nevertheless, we believe today's rule fills an important safety gap by requiring the use of safety belts when the passenger seat is used by team drivers or other authorized individuals.
Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and DOT policies and procedures, FMCSA must determine
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.
FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866 or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The proposals contained in this document would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, lead to a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant adverse effects on the United States economy.
According to data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, available in the docket for this rulemaking, in 2013, 348 non-driver occupants were in the truck at the time the vehicle was involved in a fatal crash and were wearing a lap or shoulder belt. Seventeen of those non-driver occupants were killed in the crash. Also in 2013, 122 non-driver occupants of large trucks were involved in fatal crashes and were not wearing a lap and or shoulder belt; of these, 30 were killed. Sixteen of the 30 were totally or partially ejected from the truck. The fatality rate was thus far lower among passengers who wore seat belts. FMCSA believes that some of these fatalities could have been prevented if this regulation had been in place.
While all States but one have seat belt laws, failure to use a belt may be either a primary of secondary offense and may not apply to a truck passenger; furthermore, there may be differences in the weight threshold at which the law applies. Therefore, adopting a Federal rule applicable to non-driver occupants of CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, will provide a uniform national standard. To maintain eligibility for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, States would be required to adopt compatible seat belt rules for non-driver occupants within 3 years of FMCSA's publication of a final rule.
Admittedly, FMCSA does not know how many trucks carry passengers, or how many of those passengers fail to use existing seat belts. However, given that the only cost of the proposal is the negligible amount of time needed for occupants to buckle their seat belts, the rule would obviously benefit motor carrier employees and passengers. Seat belts have been proven to save lives, and while the specific number of CMV-related fatalities that could be avoided is unclear, FMCSA believes motor carriers' and drivers' compliance with a final rule requiring the use of seat belts by non-driver occupants would save lives.
The Agency believes the potential economic of this NPRM impact is positive, because it is likely that some lives will be saved at a cost that would not begin to approach the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional or public interest. This proposed rule therefore has not been formally reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), FMCSA does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA believes the cost is minimal and poses no disproportionate burden to small entities.
Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact 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 Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
FMCSA reviewed this notice of proposed rulemaking in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and determined that it does not have Federalism implications.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.
FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, the rule does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, § 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. FMCSA has not completed an assessment of the handling of PII in connection with today's proposal because the NPRM does not involve PII.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt its own technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate statement to OMB on this matter.
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule would not require the collection of any personally identifiable information.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. This proposed rule would not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section 112 of Pub. L. 103- 311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); and 49 CFR 1.87.
(a)
(b)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) determination not to conduct a continuance referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Order) provided for in the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (Act) amendments of 1990. This determination is based on the results of a sign-up period conducted August 3 through August 14, 2015, during which eligible cotton producers and importers were provided an opportunity to request a continuance referendum.
Shethir M. Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
During the period of August 3 through August 14, 2015, pursuant to Section 8(c)(1) of the Act, USDA provided an opportunity for eligible cotton producers and importers to request a continuance referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order provided for in the Act. Sign-up period results showed that USDA received 46 valid requests from eligible producers and importers. The following table depicts the number of requests for a continuance referendum.
Section 8(c)(2) of the Act, provides that following a sign-up period, USDA shall conduct a referendum upon the request of 10 percent or more of the number of cotton producers and importers voting in the most recent referendum (1991). This would require 10 percent or 4,622 (46,220 × .10 = 4,622) of the 46,220 valid ballots cast by cotton producers and importers in the July 1991 referendum. It is further provided that, in counting such request not more than 20 percent or 924 may be from producers from any one state or importers of cotton.
USDA finds that the results of the sign-up period did not meet the criteria requiring a continuance referendum by the Act. USDA bases this determination on the fact that the 46 requests received during the sign-up period is less than the 4,622 required.
The 1991 amendments to the Order (7 CFR 1205
On July 9, 1991, (56 FR 31289) AMS issued a proposal to amend the Order to determine if a majority, 50 percent or more, of producers and importers favored implementation of the proposed amendments to the Order. USDA conducted a referendum (July 1991) among persons who had been cotton producers or cotton importers during a representative period. Results of the July 1991 referendum showed that of the 46,220 valid ballots received; 27,879 or 60 percent of the persons voting favored the amendments to the Order and 18,341 or 40 percent opposed the amendments.
Following the July 1991 referendum, AMS implemented the amendments. In addition to the previously discussed amendments to the Act and Order, USDA is required by Section 8(c)(1) to: (1) Conduct a review once every 5 years after the anniversary date of the referendum implementing the 1990 Act amendments to determine whether a referendum is necessary and (2) make public the results of such a review within 60 days after each fifth anniversary date of the 1991 implementing referendum. Should the review indicate that a referendum is needed USDA is directed to conduct the referendum within 12 months after a public announcement of review results. Should the review indicate that a referendum is not warranted, Section 8(c)(2) includes provisions for producers and importers to request a continuance referendum through a sign-up period.
In 2011-2012, the Department prepared a 5-year report that described the impact of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program on the cotton industry. The review report is available upon written request to the Chief of the Cotton Research and Promotion Staff at the address provided above. Comments were solicited from all interested parties, including persons who pay the assessments as well as from
USDA reviewed the Cotton Research and Promotion Program major program activities and accomplishments, including third-party evaluations of advertising and marketing activities and other functional areas; the results of producer and importer awareness and satisfaction surveys; and data from the Foreign Agricultural Service. USDA also reviewed the results of the Cotton Board's 2011 independent program evaluation, which assessed the effectiveness of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program; the strength of cotton's competitive position; the ability to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets; increases in the number of uses for cotton; and estimates of a return on investment for stakeholders and qualitative benefits and returns associated with the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. The review report concluded that the 1990 amendments to the Act were successfully implemented and are operating as intended. The report also noted that there is a general consensus within the cotton industry that the Cotton Research and Promotion Program and the 1990 amendments to the Act are operating as intended. Written comments, economic data, and results from independent evaluations support this conclusion.
USDA found no compelling reason to conduct a referendum regarding the 1990 Act amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order although some program participants support a referendum. In 2013, USDA announced its view not to conduct a referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order (78 FR 32228). Therefore, USDA allowed all eligible persons to request the conduct of a continuance referendum on the 1990 amendments through a sign-up period. The results of this sign-up period did not meet the criteria as established by the Act for a continuance referendum and, therefore, referenda were not conducted.
With this announcement of the results of the sign-up period, USDA has completed all requirements set forth in Section 8(c) (1) and (2) of the Act regarding the review of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program to determine if a continuance referendum is warranted. A referendum will not be conducted, and no further actions are planned in connection with this review.
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Shoshone Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet via conference call. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via conference call. Members of the public wishing to call in should contact Shoshone RAC Coordinator, Olga Troxel, for call-in information.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Olga Troxel by phone at 307-578-5164 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by December 30, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Olga Troxel, RAC Coordinator, 808 Meadow Lane, Cody, WY; or by email to
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
This meeting will take place via web conference and is open to the public. The audio portion of the meeting is available toll-free at: 888-417-8533, conference ID: 2138345 (audio only). Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and to provide an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers will incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public may also register for online access to the meeting at the following link:
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be accessible for public viewing at
A full-day in person hearing on this topic will follow in Indianapolis, IN in March of 2016. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Wisconsin Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, January 21, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of discussing a forthcoming draft report on hate crime in the state, and beginning consideration of additional civil rights topics for future Committee consideration.
This meeting is open to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-500-6950, conference ID: 469735. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Member of the public are also invited and welcomed to make statements during the scheduled open comment period. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 21, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or
On August 7, 2015, Takasago International Corporation (U.S.A.) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Site 10 of FTZ 37 in Harriman, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration's (ITA) U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are organizing a Subsea & Onshore Technology Trade Mission to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil October 19-21, 2016.
The Subsea & Onshore Technology Trade Mission offers a timely and cost-effective means for U.S. firms to engage with key stakeholders and to enter the promising Brazilian oil and gas market for subsea and onshore equipment, technology, and services. The delegation will be comprised of at least 10 U.S. firms and a maximum of 15 U.S. firms representing a cross-section of U.S. oil and gas segments that have developed products and services for subsea (deep water) and onshore, oil and gas exploration and production. The mission will also be open to representatives of U.S. trade associations in the targeted industries with a commercial interest in Brazil.
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than July 24, 2016. All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a comparative basis starting July 25, 2016 until at least 10 participants are selected with a maximum number of 15 participants. Applications received after July 25, 2016, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
After a company or organization has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the Trade Mission will be $2,300 for a small or medium-sized firm (SME) or industry organization, and $2,500 for large firms. The fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME/trade organization) is USD $750.00.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings, and airport transfers during the mission), and air
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Targeted mission participants are U.S. companies or organizations providing oil and gas equipment, technology, or services. The participants' products or services must be either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product/service.
The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
• Suitability of the firm or service provider's products or services to the market.
• Firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company or organization size and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mr. Mark Wells, International Trade Specialist, Trade Missions, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: (202) 482-0904,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) is organizing an Executive-led Renewable Energy Trade Mission to Mexico from May 16 to 19, 2016. The Renewable Energy Trade Mission offers a timely and cost-effective means for U.S. firms to engage with key stakeholders and to enter the promising Mexican market for renewable energy equipment, technology, and services.
A senior ITA official will lead a delegation of 15 to 20 companies for a series of meetings with government officials, power sector decision makers, potential buyers and other commercial partners in Mexico City. Delegates will receive discounted access to Mexico's premier trade show and congress for the clean energy industries, MIREC WEEK, including exclusive networking opportunities facilitated by the International Trade Administration. Participating companies will also have the option for a
The mission will target near- and medium-term opportunities for U.S. equipment suppliers, technology providers and integrators, and a wide range of service providers operating in the solar, wind, renewable fuels, geothermal, and hydro power sub-sectors. In addition to exclusive meetings with Mexican energy sector officials, delegates will benefit from exposure to the hundreds of businesses and high-level decision makers participating in MIREC WEEK. The U.S. Commercial Service in Mexico will organize a complete package of country briefings, business and government meetings, sub-sector seminars, and networking opportunities led by U.S. government officials during MIREC WEEK. Delegates participating in the Monterrey extension will also receive business-to-business services designed to capitalize on unique opportunities in the local market and connect mission delegates with potential buyers.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated, on a rolling basis, on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below
After a company or organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the basic Trade Mission, including a discounted one-day all-access pass to MIREC WEEK, will be $1,900, for a small or medium-sized firm (SME), and $2,250 for large firms. The additional fee for participants in the extended Mission for pre-screened business to business meetings in Monterrey will be $1,400 for a SME and $1,700.00 for a large firm. The fee for each additional company representative participating in the Mission will be $1,600.00 for Mexico City and $500 for Monterrey.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings), and air transportation. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms.
Business or entry visas may be required to participate on the mission. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and the U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of 20 participants for Mexico City and 10 participants for Monterrey are selected. Applications received after March 4, 2016, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit and participation fees must be paid by March 14, 2016.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. companies or trade associations providing renewable energy equipment, technology and services with export interests in Mexico's market.
Certification of products and/or services being manufactured or produced in the United States is required, or if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the product/service must be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service.
The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of a firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) products or services to Mexico's market.
• Firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company size and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mr. Adam O'Malley, Office Director: Energy and Environmental Studies, U.S. Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 4053, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-4850,
Ms. Clarissa David, International Trade Specialist, Office of Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration is organizing a trade mission to Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina that will include the Trade Winds—Latin America business forum in Santiago, Chile on September 7-9, 2016. U.S. trade mission members will participate in the Trade Winds—Latin America business forum in Santiago, Chile, which is also open to U.S. companies not participating in the trade mission. Trade mission participants may also choose to participate in their choice of trade mission stops based on recommendations from the USFCS, including in Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina. Each trade mission stop will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors or joint-venture partners. Trade mission participants in the Trade Winds—Latin America business forum may attend regional and industry-specific sessions and consultations with USFCS Senior Commercial Officers and other government officials representing the Western Hemisphere region during the business forum in Santiago, Chile on September 7-9, 2016.
This mission is open to U.S. companies and trade associations from a cross-section of industries with growth potential in Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina, including, but not limited to the following industries: Power generation, transmission and distribution technology and equipment; oil and gas equipment and technology; mining and construction equipment; building products; agricultural equipment and technology; information communications technology and equipment; healthcare and medical products, equipment, and services; water technologies; environmental technologies; consumer products; and safety and security products and services.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission to Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below.
A minimum of 30 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool on a first-come, first-served basis. Mission stop participation will be limited as follows: The Bolivia mission stop is limited to 15 companies; the Paraguay mission stop is limited to 5 companies; the Uruguay mission stop is limited to 15 companies; the Argentina mission stop is limited to 20 companies; Peru mission stop is limited to 10 companies; Mexico mission stop is limited to 20 companies; and the Chile mission stop is limited to 30 companies.
Additional delegates may be accepted based on available space. U.S. companies and/or trade associations already doing business in or seeking business in Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.
• For one mission stop, the participation fee will be $1,900 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $2,900 for large firms.
• For two mission stops, the participation fee will be $2,900 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $3,900 for large firms.
• For three mission stops, the participation fee will be $3,900 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $4,900 for large firms.
The above trade mission fees include the $950 participation fee for the Trade Winds business forum to be held in Santiago, Chile on September 7-9, 2016.
An additional representative for both SMEs and large firms will require an additional fee of $950.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings), and air transportation. Participants may, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms if available. Business or entry visas may be required to participate on the mission. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than June 15, 2016. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning 14 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, until the minimum of 30 participants is selected. After June 15, 2016, applications will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. Applicant should specify in their application and supplemental materials which trade mission stops they are interested in participating in. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the U.S., or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content.
The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of a firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) products or services to these markets.
• Firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Diego Gattesco, Director, U.S. Export Assistance Center—Wheeling, WV,
Ms. Ethel Glenn, International Trade Specialist, Office of Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is organizing a healthcare trade and investment mission to Peru. The mission is designed to promote U.S. companies in the following areas: Pharmaceutical producers, medical device manufacturers, hospital operation and management services, hospital information systems, and eHealth solutions. The mission also will assist U.S. companies already doing business in Peru to expand their footprint. This mission will be executive-led.
All parties interested in participating in the healthcare trade and investment mission to Peru must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A maximum of 20 companies or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.
Peru's local healthcare-related manufacturing is limited to consumables, basic electro diagnostics and hospital furniture, which explains Peru's low export volumes. Regional governments and private companies look towards foreign medical equipment and device suppliers to fulfill the demand. This market trend creates vast opportunities for U.S. businesses that specialize in state of the art equipment such as computed tomography (CT) scanners, robotic radiosurgery system, and gamma knives.
After an applicant has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have five (5) business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.
The participation fee for the trade mission to Peru is $1,500 for small- or medium-sized enterprises (SME*) and $2,800 for large companies and/or trade associations. The fee for each additional representative (large firm or SME or trade association/organization) is $500. Companies that opt for the additional day of one-on-one business matchmaking appointments will pay an additional fee of $1,500 (includes related expenses like transportation and interpretation) separately.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings), and air transportation. Participants may, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms if available. Business or entry visas may be required to participate on the mission. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than February 1, 2016. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions as quickly as possible after the February 1, 2016 deadline. Applications received after February 1, 2016 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including information on their products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation by February 1, 2016. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: Request additional information/clarification, take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application, or reject the application.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. company and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content by value. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that, for each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented firm or service provider seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. company and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
In addition, each applicant must:
• Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials; and
• Certify that it meets the minimum requirements as stated in this announcement.
In the case of a trade association/organization, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization can make the above certifications.
Diego Gattesco, Trade Americas Team Leader, U.S. Commercial Service—Wheeling, WV, Tel: 304-243-5493, Email:
Ms. Anne Novak, International Trade Specialist, Office of Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel:
Notice of Issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the California Almond Export Association, LLC (“CAEA”) (Application No. 99-10A005).
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the California Almond Export Association on November 24, 2015. The Certificate has now been amended ten times. The most recent previous amendment was issued to CAEA on August 17, 2015, and a notice of its issuance was published in the
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions.
The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2015).
OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
Add the following new Member of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): California Gold Almonds, Modesto, CA.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA), with participation from the U.S. Departments of Energy and State, is organizing the 9th Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference, to be held September 18-21, 2016, in Vienna, Austria. The IAEA General Conference is the premier global meeting of civil nuclear policymakers and typically attracts senior officials and industry representatives from all 162 Member States. The U.S. Industry Program is part of the Department of Commerce-led Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative, a U.S. Government effort to help U.S. civil nuclear companies identify and capitalize on commercial civil nuclear opportunities around the world. The purpose of the program is to help the U.S. nuclear industry promote its services and technologies to an international audience, including senior energy policymakers from current and emerging markets as well as IAEA staff.
Representatives of U.S. companies from across the U.S. civil nuclear supply chain are eligible to participate. In addition, organizations providing related services to the industry, such as universities, research institutions, and U.S. civil nuclear trade associations, are eligible for participation. The mission will help U.S. participants gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and identify or advance specific projects with the goal of increasing U.S. civil nuclear exports to a wide variety of countries interested in nuclear energy.
The schedule includes: (1) Meetings with foreign delegations; (2) briefings from senior U.S. Government officials and IAEA staff on important civil nuclear topics including regulatory, technology and standards issues; liability, public acceptance, export controls, financing, infrastructure development, and R&D cooperation; and (3) networking events. Past U.S. Industry Programs have included participation by the U.S. Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and senior U.S. Government officials from the Departments of Commerce, Energy, State, the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the National Security Council.
There are significant opportunities for U.S. businesses in the global civil nuclear energy market. With 172 nuclear plant projects planned in 30 countries over the next 8-10 years, this translates to a market demand for equipment and services totaling $500-740 billion over the next ten years. This mission contributes to the President's National Export Initiative NEXT (
Jonathan Chesebro, Industry & Analysis, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-1297, Email:
Mr. Robert McEntire, Project Officer—Office of Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-5226, Email:
U.S. companies, U.S. trade associations, and U.S. academic and research institutions interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the DOC. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis in the order that they are received. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 50 companies and/or trade associations and/or U.S. academic and research institutions will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.
After a company or organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the DOC in the form of a participation fee is required. Participants will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.
The fee to participate in the event is $3,500 for a large, small or medium-sized company (SME), a trade association, or a U.S. university or research institution. The fee for each additional representative (large company, trade association, university/research institution, or SME) is $2,400.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation, except as stated in the proposed agenda, and air transportation from the United States to the mission site and return to the United States.
Recruitment for participation in the U.S. Industry Program as a representative of the U.S. nuclear industry will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Applicants must submit a completed mission application signed by a company, trade association, or academic or research institution official, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the organization's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the DOC receives an incomplete application, the DOC may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account in its evaluation.
Each applicant also must certify that the products or services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have demonstrable U.S. content as a percentage of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have demonstrable U.S. content. In the case of an academic or research institution, the applicant must certify that as part of its activities at the event, it will represent the interests of constituents that meet the criteria above.
Applicants from a company, organization or institution that is majority owned or controlled by a foreign government entity will not be considered for participation in the U.S. Industry Program.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, is organizing the third Japan-United States Decommissioning and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum (“Fukushima Recovery Forum”) on February 24-25, 2016 in Tokyo, Japan. Building on the second Fukushima Recovery Forum held in April 2015, the third Fukushima Recovery Forum aims to continue to develop U.S.-Japanese cooperation on Fukushima recovery efforts, the decommissioning of other Japanese reactors, and the restart of Japan's reactor fleet. The event will be a venue for U.S. firms to hear from Japanese Ministries, utilities, and commissioning entities on the status of Japan's civil nuclear energy program. In addition, the event will be a forum for U.S. and Japanese firms to share experiences, expertise, and lessons learned in remediation and decommissioning, including work underway at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station, and in Tohoku, the area affected by the accident at Fukushima. The event also aims to address interest in cooperation in areas related to nuclear power as Japan moves forward with its plan for decommissioning or restarting its nuclear reactors. U.S. firms will also be given an opportunity to network with Japanese firms and identify potential business partners.
ITA is seeking the participation of a maximum of 25 U.S. companies that produce technology or provide services in the decommissioning or remediation sector as well as in areas related to nuclear restarts. Staff from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Global Markets, Industry & Analysis (I&A), and U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service (CS) units will also be available in Tokyo to provide export counseling and civil nuclear trade policy guidance to participating companies.
Support for the Fukushima Recovery Forum was confirmed at meetings of the U.S-Japan Bilateral Commission on Civil Nuclear Cooperation. The Bilateral Commission serves as a senior-level, forum for consultations on mutual issues of concern to further strengthen bilateral cooperation and advance shared interests in the area of civil nuclear cooperation. The Bilateral Commission is chaired by the Department of Energy and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI). There are five working groups under the Bilateral Commission that coordinate bilateral cooperation in the areas of civil nuclear energy research and development, the decommissioning of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station, environmental management, emergency management, nuclear security, and safety and regulatory issues.
The Decommissioning and Environmental Management Working Group (DEMWG) under the Bilateral Commission addresses the long-term consequences of the Fukushima accident, including facility decommissioning, spent fuel storage, decontamination, and remediation of contaminated areas. The Fukushima Recovery Forum is under the auspices of the DEMWG to further industry cooperation in support of Fukushima recovery efforts.
U.S. companies, U.S. trade associations, and U.S. academic and research institutions interested in participating in the Fukushima Recovery Forum must submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated based on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A maximum of 25 entities will be selected to participate in the Forum from the applicant pool. U.S. companies already doing business in Japan as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter to the Japanese market for the first time may apply. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis in the order they are received.
After a U.S. company, U.S. trade association, or U.S. academic and research institutions has been selected to participate in the Forum, a participation fee is required. The participation fee is $1,130 for a large firm, a trade association, or a U.S. university or research institution and $860 for small or medium-sized firms or non-profit educational institution. The fee for each additional representative is $600. As space permits, up to four additional representatives can be accommodated per company, trade association, or university or research institution. Fees will cover the cost for interpreters, a booklet containing information about participating U.S. and Japanese firms, and reception costs.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The participation fee does not include personal travel expenses such as airfare, lodging, most meals, incidentals, and local ground transportation and personal interpreters used during the networking sessions. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain visas are also not included in the Fukushima Recovery
Recruitment for the Fukushima Recovery Forum will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Applicants must submit a completed mission application signed by a company official, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, interest in doing business in Japan, and goals for participation by January 8, 2016. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, it may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account in its evaluation.
Each applicant must also certify that the products or services it seeks to export through its participation in the Fukushima Recovery Forum are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and that the promotion of the products or services the applicant seeks to export would be consistent with ITA's mission to strengthen the international competitiveness of U.S. industry and promote U.S. exports. In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and that the promotion of the products or services the applicant seeks to export would be consistent with ITA's mission to strengthen the international competitiveness of U.S. industry and promote U.S. exports. In the case of an academic or research institution, the applicant must certify that as part of its activities at the event, it will represent the interests of the organization's staff that meet the criteria above. Applicants from a company, organization or institution that is majority owned or controlled by a foreign government entity will not be considered for participation.
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Senior Nuclear Trade Specialist, Industry & Analysis | Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce | International Trade Administration, Phone: (202) 482-1297, Email:
Mr. Robert McEntire, Project Officer—Office of Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-5226, Email:
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration's (ITA) U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) in Turkey is organizing a Transportation Technologies, Equipment & Systems Trade Mission to Turkey on September 26-30, 2016.
The U.S.-Turkey Transportation Industry Trade Mission is intended to include representatives from a variety of U.S. transportation industry hi-tech equipment, systems and technology suppliers and service providers. The mission will introduce these suppliers to Turkish business partners, industry representatives, and to the Turkish municipal/government officials to learn about and benefit from various transportation project opportunities in the country. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling to Turkey on their own, will enhance the companies' ability to secure meetings in Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir. The influence of the transportation sector is expected to increase more in the future, as a large number of transportation related projects, including rail, air, sea, and land, are either already underway or expected to accommodate for an increasingly industrialized country in the years to come. Further in the horizon, due to the increased infrastructural partnership between private and government enterprises, marine and railway freightage will have a big role in cargo moving for combined transportation. The Government of Turkey has committed to new investments in this industry to keep up with future demand which is expected to reach targets in 2023, the centennial of the Turkish Republic. GoT spells out investments totaling almost $250 billion with the distribution as follows: Land transportation: $110 billion; rail: $50; marine: $35; and aviation: $50. The trade mission offers a timely and cost effective way of engaging with key stake holders in the transportation sector which covers a wide range of players from air to sea, land to rail industries. Trade mission participants will have the opportunity to interact extensively with Commercial Service (CS) Turkey specialists as well as USEAC offices to discuss industry developments, opportunities, and sales strategies.
The trade mission will also include a regional program for introductions to private sector and government officials from the partnership posts of Turkey, namely Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Georgia. The meetings will take place in Istanbul, with the participation of the partnership posts and possibly other countries in the region.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 25 companies will be selected to participate in the mission.
After a company or organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the Trade Mission will be $3700 for a small or medium-sized firm (SME), and $4700 for large firms. The fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME/trade organization) is $750. Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings, and airport transfers during the mission), and air transportation. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. Electronic visas are required to participate on the mission, which are easily obtainable online. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than July 29, 2016. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a comparative basis starting on June 24, 2016 until the maximum number of participants is selected. Applications received after July 29, 2016, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. companies providing material/equipment, technology and services to any of the four transportation industries, air, rail, land, and marine that have an interest in learning more about the Turkish and regional markets. Target sectors holding high potential for U.S exporters/contractors include: Material/equipment/technology/services providers in the transportation industry, including airports.
Certification of products and/or services being manufactured or produced in the United States or if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the product/service is marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service.
The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of a firm's or service provider's products or services to these markets.
• Firm's or service provider's potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the firm's or service provider's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mr. Kent Campbell, International Trade Specialist, Office of Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-7426, Fax: 202-482-9000,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada.
Dana Mermelstein or Toby Vandall, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1391 and (202) 482-1664, respectively.
On October 20, 2015, the Department published its final affirmative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of SC paper from Canada.
The product covered by this order is SC paper. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing SC paper is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of SC paper from Canada. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this countervailing duty order.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of SC paper from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 3, 2015, the date on which the Department published its preliminary countervailing duty determination in the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of SC paper from Canada, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the
This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to SC paper from Canada pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.
This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by this order is supercalendered paper (SC paper). SC paper is uncoated paper that has undergone a calendering process in which the base sheet, made of pulp and filler (typically, but not limited to, clay, talc, or other mineral additive), is processed through a set of supercalenders, a supercalender, or a soft nip calender operation.
The scope of this order covers all SC paper regardless of basis weight, brightness, opacity, smoothness, or grade, and whether in rolls or in sheets. Further, the scope covers all SC paper that meets the scope definition regardless of the type of pulp fiber or filler material used to produce the paper.
Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of paper printed with final content of printed text or graphics.
Subject merchandise primarily enters under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4802.61.3035, but may also enter under subheadings 4802.61.3010, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.6020, and 4802.69.3000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce (DOC), International Trade Administration (ITA), U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS), is organizing an executive-led Safety and Security Trade Mission to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia scheduled for November 12-18, 2016. The objective of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's homeland security market and to assist U.S. companies pursue export opportunities in this sector. The mission is intended to include representatives from leading U.S. companies that provide state-of-the-art security and safety equipment. The mission will visit Kuwait City, Riyadh and Dhahran, where participants will receive market briefings and participate in customized meetings with key safety and security officials and prospective partners in the private and public sector. The trade mission will coincide with the IFSEC exhibition scheduled in Riyadh from November 14-16, 2016.
Trade mission participants will begin their business mission in Kuwait City, where CS Kuwait will arrange meetings with private and public sector officials that would include the procurement division of the Ministry of Interior.
The mission will aid participating firms to gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The mission will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; possible meetings with government officials; and networking events. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation will enhance the companies' ability to secure meetings with senior officials in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by DOC. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. U.S. companies already doing business with Saudi Arabia as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter to the Saudi market for the first time may apply. A minimum of 15 and a maximum of 20 companies will be selected for participation in this mission.
After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the DOC in the form of a participation fee is required. (The participation fee is $3,300 for large firms and $2,900 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), which covers one representative. The fee for each additional representative is $750) this is just a suggestion.
Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation, and air transportation from the U.S. to the mission sites, between mission sites, and return to the United States. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
Mr. Douglas Wallace, U.S. Commercial Service, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tel: +966 11 488-3800, Email:
Ms. Jessica Dulkadir, International Trade Specialist, Trade Missions, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-2026, Fax: 202-482-9000,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing an Information and Communication Technology Trade Mission to Istanbul, Turkey and Ankara from November 28th-December 1st, 2016. The trade mission will focus on Cyber Security and e-Commerce as a sub sector.
The purpose of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms and trade associations to Turkey information and communication technology (ICT) security and critical infrastructure protection markets and to assist U.S. companies to find business partners and export their products and services. The mission will visit Istanbul and Ankara in Turkey where U.S. firms will have access to business development opportunities, participating firms will gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports of products and services to Turkey. The mission will include customized one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; meetings with state and local government officials and industry leaders; and networking events.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the DOC. All applicants will be evaluated, on a rolling basis, on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 20 firms and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.
After a firm or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the Business Development Mission will be $2970.63 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME); and $3937.50 for large firms or trade associations. The fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME/trade organization) is $500. Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Interpreter and driver services can be arranged for additional cost. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation, and air transportation from the U.S. to the mission sites, between mission sites, and return to the United States. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Companies must provide certification of products and/or services being manufactured or produced in the United States or if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the product and/or service is marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of the company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') products or services to the mission goals and the markets to be visited as part of this trade mission.
• Company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') potential for business in each of the markets to be visited as part of this trade mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mr. Gemal Brangman, Project Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Tel: 202-482-3773, Fax: 202-482-9000,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing a Trade Mission to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador from May 16 to 20, 2016. The purpose of this mission is to assist U.S. companies in launching or increasing exports of U.S. safety and security goods or services to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Participating firms will gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports of products and services to the Northern Triangle of Central America. The mission will include customized one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors, and joint venture partners; meetings with industry leaders, market briefings, and networking events.
Burglar and motion alarms, sensors, intrusion detection systems, CCTV cameras, metal detectors, access control equipment, biometrics, electronic surveillance, remote monitoring, sensors, perimeter security, fire and smoke detection systems and alarms, body armor, uniforms and tactical gear, commercial personal defense products,
All parties interested in participating in the Safety and Security Trade Mission to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras must complete and submit an application for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 10 U.S. companies and/or trade associations and a maximum of 12 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies or trade associations already doing business with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, as well as U.S. companies or trade associations seeking to enter these countries for the first time may apply.
After a company and/or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be US$3,800 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and US$4,800 for a large firm.
The fee for each additional representative is US$450.
Expenses for travel to and from the mission, lodging, most meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation, except as stated in the proposed agenda, and air transportation from the United States to the mission site and return to the United States.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment will begin immediately and conclude no later than Friday, March 4, 2016. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of participants is reached. We will inform all applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after applications are reviewed. Applications received after the deadline will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
Ms. April Redmon, Industry & Analysis, Safety and Security Team, Arlington, VA, Tel: (703) 235-0103, Email:
Ms. Jessica Dulkadir, International Trade Specialist, Trade Missions, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202 482 2026, Fax: 202-482-9000,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is organizing an education mission to Panama and Honduras with an optional stop to Guatemala. The Department of Commerce is partnering with the Department of State's EducationUSA Advising Centers. This trade mission is designed to emphasize U.S. higher education, focusing on, in order of importance, intensive English language programs, community colleges, summer, undergraduate and graduate programs. The trade mission follows a successful trade mission to El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua in March 2015 and was of high demand given the previous successes.
This mission will seek to connect U.S. higher education institutions to potential students and university/institution partners in Central America. The mission will include student fairs organized by EducationUSA, embassy briefings, site visits, and networking events. Panama City, San Pedro Sula and Guatemala City, are three of the top cities for recruiting students from Central America to the United States. Participating in the Education Mission, rather than traveling to these markets independently, will enhance the participants ability to secure appropriate meetings, especially in light of the high level engagement and support of U.S. education by the U.S. ambassadors in Panama and Honduras.
Certain criteria must be fulfilled by schools attending this trade mission. Summer programs seeking to participate should be appropriately accredited by an accreditation body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Intensive English language programs seeking to participate should be accredited by the Commission on English Language Programs Accreditation (CEA) or appropriately accredited by an accreditation body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Community colleges, undergraduate and graduate programs seeking to participate should be accredited by a recognized accreditation body listed in Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or Accrediting Council for Education and Training (ACCET), in the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA), or any accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
All parties interested in participating in the mission to Central America must submit a complete application package for consideration to the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. Participants in the mission will be selected on a rolling basis to a minimum of 14 and a maximum of 20 appropriately accredited U.S. educational institutions. Both, U.S. educational institutions already recruiting students and developing partnerships in the region and those who are new to recruiting and developing partnerships in the region may apply. The optional stop of Guatemala City will also be available on a rolling basis up to a maximum of 10 participants.
After an institution has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee is $2,550 for one principal representative from each non-profit educational institution or educational institution with less than 500 employees and $ $2,939 for for-profit universities with over 500 employees. An institution can choose to participate in the optional stop in Guatemala for an additional $1,646 for one principal representative from each non-profit educational institution or educational institution with less than 500 employees and $1,872 for for-profit universities with over 500 employees. The fee for each additional representative is $500. Expenses for lodging, some meals, incidentals, and all travel (except for transportation to and from airports in-country, previously noted) will be the responsibility of each mission participant. The U.S. Department of Commerce can facilitate government rates in some hotels. The cost of participating in the student fairs at each location will be included in the registration fee.
All interested firms and associations may register via the following link:
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
An applicant must submit a timely, completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on course offerings, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. The institution must have appropriate accreditation as specified per paragraph one above. The institution must be represented at the student fair by an employee. No agents will be allowed to represent a school on the mission or participate at the student fair. Agents will also not be allowed into the fairs to solicit new partnerships. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Participants must travel to both stops in Panama and Honduras on the mission. Guatemala is the only optional stop.
Each applicant must certify that the services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the service.
Jeffrey Goldberg, Industry & Analysis, Office of Trade Promotion Programs, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-1706, Email:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 5, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products (welded pipe and tube) from Turkey.
Fred Baker, Deborah Scott, or Robert James AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2924, (202) 482-2657, and (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On June 5, 2015, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to the order is welded pipe and tube. The welded pipe and tube subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description is dispositive.
In the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted with this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the
As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014:
We intend
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).
For Borusan, because its weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For Toscelik, we will instruct CBP to liquidate its entries during the POR imported by the importers identified in its questionnaire responses without regard to antidumping duties because its weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Borusan and Toscelik will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 14.74 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Recommendation
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice, recommendation; correction.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published a notice of a recommendation to the Secretary of Energy in the
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, or telephone number (202) 694-7000.
In the
On behalf of the Secretary, thank you for the opportunity to review the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Draft Recommendation 2015-1,
The draft Recommendation's risk assessment states: “it is not possible to do a quantitative assessment of the risk of these [the Pantex Emergency Management Program] elements to provide adequate protection of the workers and the public.” As a point of clarification, the Department of Energy (DOE) demonstrates adequate protection of workers, the public and the environment as an integral part of operating a nuclear facility like that situated at the Pantex Plant. To this end, the Department has put in place a system of requirements, standards, policies and guidance that, when effectively implemented, not only provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection, but takes a very conservative approach to ensure such protection. Functions such as emergency management provide that additional conservatism and margin of protection. We are confident that, even with deficiencies identified by the DNFSB, the Pantex Emergency Management Program can perform its role to ensure this protection. Accordingly, DOE recommends removing the phrase: “in order to provide an adequate protection to the public and the workers” in justifying the need for the draft recommendation.
To increase protection assurances and drive improvement in an effective and efficient manner, I suggest that the best approach to address the concerns identified in your Draft Recommendation is to incorporate ongoing NNSA performance improvement initiatives and enhancements into the existing implementation plans for Recommendation 2014-1. This approach would enable the Department to take a holistic, integrated approach to making the needed improvements at Pantex.
We appreciate the DNFSB's perspective and look forward to continued positive interactions with you and your staff to include Pantex-specific actions and milestones in the existing Implementation Plan for Recommendation 2014-1.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Geoffrey Beausoleil, Manager, NNSA Production Office, at 865-576-0752.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 8, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Meredith Bachman, 202-219-2014.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
In order for the evaluation to have sufficient statistical power to detect policy relevant impacts, the sample consists of 1,771 eligible program applicants in spring 2012 (cohort 1; n=536), spring 2013 (cohort 2; n=718), and in spring 2014 (cohort 3, n=517. This is an extension of an approved information collection. The extension is requested to cover follow up data collection for cohort 2 as well as the addition of cohort 3 needed to obtain the sample size needed for the evaluation. There are no changes to the study design, data collection plans and instruments from what is approved by OMB in the current collection.
Evaluation data will be collected for the three cohorts of program applicants from a variety of sources listed below. Each cohort will have baseline data as well as three years of follow up (post-lottery) data collection; 2013-2015 for cohort 1, 2014-2016 for cohort 2, and 2015-2017 for cohort 3. In addition to estimating program impact, we will use this experimental study to conducted research about interim outcomes.
Data sources include:
Student surveys: The surveys will be administered to each evaluation sample student in grades four and above in each of the follow up years at the same time (and place) as the student assessments.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 8, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 8, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jim Doyle, (202) 245-6630.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
l.
Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene.
m.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
n. The applicant requested that the Commission only solicit competing applications for 30 days, and not notices of intent to file competing applications. For the reasons noted in item m and to expedite the licensing process, we intend to solicit competing applications for 30 days, but will allow notices of intent to be filed to ensure sufficient opportunity for competing applications to be filed.
o.
Take notice that on December 3, 2015, Idaho Power Company and IDACORP Energy Services Company submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's November 3, 2015 Order.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-12-04_WPPI Cost Recovery Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
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:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for license for the Merced River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2179), and the Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2467) and prepared a final multi-project environmental impact statement (EIS) for the projects.
Both projects are located on the Merced River. The Merced River Project is located at river mile (RM) 62.5 and 56.3, respectively, about 23 miles northeast of the city of Merced in Mariposa County, California. The Merced River Project occupies 3,154.9 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Merced Falls Project is located at RM 55 on the border of Merced and Mariposa Counties, California. The Merced Falls Project occupies 1.0 acre of federal land administered by BLM.
The final EIS contains staff evaluations of the applicants' proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Merced River and Merced Falls projects. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, and Commission staff.
A copy of the final EIS is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, please contact Matt Buhyoff at (202) 502-6824 or at
Take notice that on December 4, 2015, pursuant to section 13(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA),
The Joint Complainants stated that copies of the complaint have been served on the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of corporate officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
By order dated November 24, 2015,
In the November 2015 Order, the Commission found that the assignment of cost allocation for the projects in the filings and complaints listed in the caption using PJM's solution-based distribution factor (DFAX) cost allocation method had not been shown to be just and reasonable and may be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential. The Commission directed its staff to establish a technical conference to explore both whether there is a definable category of reliability projects within PJM for which the solution-based DFAX cost allocation method may not be just and reasonable, such as projects addressing reliability violations that are not related to flow on the planned transmission facility, and whether an alternative just and reasonable
Parties wishing to speak or make presentations regarding the two issues discussed above must submit their requests on or before December 18, 2015 to
Pre-technical conference comments (with a ten page limit) on these issues
The technical conference is open to the public. The Chairman and Commissioners may attend and participate in the technical conference.
Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site
This conference will also be transcribed. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the transcript for a fee by contacting Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at (202) 347-3700.
In addition, there will be a free audio cast of the conference. Anyone wishing to listen to the meeting should send an email to Sarah McKinley at
Persons listening to the technical conference may participate by submitting questions, either prior to or during the technical conference, by emailing
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Decision.
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is granting the California Air Resources Board's (“CARB”) request for authorization of amendments to its Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines Air Toxics Control Measure (“Portable Engine Amendments”). EPA is also confirming that certain Portable Engine Amendments are within the scope of a prior EPA authorization. CARB's Portable Engine Amendments apply to in-use, portable, off-road
Petitions for review must be filed by February 8, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0798. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver
David Read, Attorney, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4367. Fax: (734) 214-4212. Email:
California initially adopted its Portable Engine regulations on February 26, 2004 as part of a broad California program to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter. The regulations applied to in-use, portable, off-road diesel-fueled engines rated 50 brake horsepower (bhp) and greater. “Portable engines” are engines that may be moved easily from location to location.
CARB adopted the 2007 amendments on July 31, 2007, and they became effective on September 12, 2007. The 2007 amendments were designed to extend temporary, emergency provisions CARB had adopted to address the inability of owners and operators to permit or register older
In 2008, CARB adopted an In-Use Off-Road regulation
California formally approved the 2010 amendments to the Portable Engine ATCM regulations on October 19, 2010 and January 20, 2011. The 2010 amendments became operative under state law on February 19, 2011. The 2010 amendments provided further compliance flexibility, and clarified or modified other aspects of the regulations. For example, some entities were allowed to operate a limited number of non-certified engines for an additional year, through December 31, 2010. Additional regulatory relief was provided for engines that were permitted or registered prior to January 1, 2010. The amendments provided for permitting of portable engines that were certified to standards for new on-road engines. Auxiliary deck engines on water well drilling rigs were exempted and instead made subject to CARB's In-Use Off-Road Regulation. Portable engines used exclusively on dedicated snow removal vehicles were also exempted. Low-use and emergency use engines were required to be removed or replaced with a current tier engine by January 1, 2017. The 2010 amendments also deleted the provision that had allowed local air districts, in their discretion, to permit non-certified engines that had operated between March 1, 2004 and October 1, 2006. The amendments specified particulate matter (PM) emission factors for certain engines, which are used to help determine fleet average standards. Finally, the 2010 amendments provided relief for certified engines that lost their permit exemption due to changes in local air district rules.
By letter dated September 15, 2014, CARB submitted a request to EPA pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act for confirmation that the 2007, 2009, and 2010 amendments fall within the scope of EPA's previous authorization, or, in the alternative, that EPA grant a full authorization for those amendments.
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any state, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain
On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule interpreting the three criteria set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A) that EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests under section 209(b)(1)(C). That provision provides that the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures will be found to be inconsistent with section 202(a) if (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
In light of the similar language of sections 209(b) and 209(e)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed California's requests for authorization of nonroad vehicle or engine standards under section 209(e)(2)(A) using the same principles that it has historically applied in reviewing requests for waivers of preemption for new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine standards
The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California.
This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
If California amends regulations that were previously authorized by EPA, California may ask EPA to determine that the amendments are within the scope of the earlier authorization. A within-the-scope determination for such amendments is permissible without a full authorization review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 209 of the Act, following the same criteria discussed above in the context of full authorizations. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
In previous waiver and authorization decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on the section 209(b)(1) criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. As the agency explained in one prior waiver decision:
It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. The whole approach of the Clean Air Act is to force the development of new types of emission control technology where that is needed by compelling the industry to “catch up” to some degree with newly promulgated standards. Such an approach . . . may be attended with costs, in the shape of reduced product offering, or price or fuel economy penalties, and by risks that a wider number of vehicle classes may not be able to complete their development work in time. Since a balancing of these risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.
Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has made clear in
[T]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's regulations, and California's determinations that they must comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be denied.
The same logic applies to authorization requests. The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver decision. As the court in
With regard to the standard of proof, the court in
[. . .] consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.
With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that
With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.”
On November 21, 2014, EPA published a
First, EPA requested comments on whether California's 2007, 2009, or 2010 Portable Engine ATCM amendments: (1) Undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards; (2) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 209 of the Act; or (3) raise any other new issues affecting EPA's previous authorization determinations. EPA also requested comments on whether the 2007, 2009, or 2010 Portable Engine ATCM amendments meet the criteria for a full authorization should any party believe that the amendments are not within the scope of the previous authorization.
EPA received no comments and no requests for a public hearing. Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.
CARB maintains that the amendments noted above meet all three within-the-scope criteria,
With regard to the first within-the-scope prong, CARB maintains that the stringency of its emission standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, especially since there are no federally applicable standards regulating in-use nonroad engines.
With regard to the second within-the-scope prong (consistency with section 209), CARB first maintains that the Portable Engine ATCM amendments do not regulate new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines and so are consistent with section 209(a).
Regarding the third prong, California states that it is “not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted authorization for the Portable Engine ATCM.”
CARB's 2010 Amendments, however, include some new or stricter regulatory requirements, such as (i) requiring low-use and emergency use engines to be removed or replaced with a current tier engine by January 1, 2017 (which is earlier than originally required for some engine sizes), (ii) no longer allowing local air districts to permit non-certified engines that had operated between March 1, 2004 and October 1, 2006, and (iii) specifying PM emission factors for certain engines in order to help determine fleet average standards. These amendments will be referred to herein as the “New 2010 Requirements.” Because these New 2010 Requirements raise new issues affecting the authorization previously granted for the
In summary, for the 2007 and 2009 Amendments, we find that California has met the three criteria for a within-the-scope authorization approval, and these amendments are thus confirmed as within the scope of the previous EPA authorization of California's Portable Engine ATCM regulations. For the 2010 Amendments, while most of the 2010 amendments are within the scope of the previous authorization, the New 2010 Requirements are not within the scope of the prior authorization, and we will proceed to determine whether the New 2010 Requirements qualify for full authorization.
As described in the background section, the CAA directs EPA to grant authorization, unless EPA makes one of three possible findings: (1) That California's protectiveness determination is arbitrary and capricious, (2) that California does not need state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (3) that the California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act. As mentioned above, the New 2010 Requirements to be evaluated for full authorization include the amendments requiring low-use and emergency use engines to be removed or replaced with a current tier engine by January 1, 2017, the amendments no longer allowing local air districts to permit non-certified engines that had operated between March 1, 2004 and October 1, 2006, and the amendments specifying PM emission factors for certain engines in order to help determine fleet average standards.
Regarding the first possible finding, it is clear that California's standards are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, especially since there are no federally applicable standards to regulate in-use nonroad engines.
Regarding the second possible finding, California reasserts its longstanding position that the State continues to need its own nonroad engine program to meet serious air pollution problems.
The third and final possible finding upon which authorization could be denied is if the New 2010 Requirements are not consistent with “this section.” As discussed above, this requires evaluation of consistency with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C). To be consistent with section 209(a), the amendments must not apply to new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. CARB states that none of its Portable Engine ATCM requirements apply to new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.
Third, to be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(c), there must be adequate lead time to permit technological development for compliance with the new standards, and the state test procedures must not be made inconsistent with federal test procedures.
Regarding test procedures, CARB maintains that the amendments do not alter any test procedures, and EPA does not have comparable in-use standards and test procedures; thus, by definition, there is no inconsistency with federal test procedures.
Regarding the existence of adequate lead time, CARB maintains that the New 2010 Requirements do not require development of new technologies, and that EPA has already previously determined that California's applicable Tier 1 through Tier 4 off-road compression ignition engine standards are technically feasible,
Having found that the New 2010 Requirements satisfy each of the criteria for full authorization, and having received no contrary evidence to contradict this finding, we cannot deny authorization of the amendments.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating CARB's amendments to its Portable Engine ATCM regulations described above and CARB's submissions for EPA review, EPA is granting a within-the-scope authorization for the Portable Engine ATCM 2007, 2009, and 2010 Amendments, other than the New 2010 Requirements (as specified above). In addition, EPA is granting a full authorization for the New 2010 Requirements.
This decision will affect persons in California and those manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt California's standards for which a section 209(e)(2)(A) authorization has been granted if certain criteria are met, this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states.
As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.
Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 28, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
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.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP, OMB No. 0920-0307 exp. 08/31/2016) - Extension - National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The objectives of GISP are: (1) To monitor trends in antibiotic resistance of
GISP is the only source in the United States of national, regional, and site-specific gonococcal antibiotic resistance information. GISP provides information to support informed and scientifically-based treatment recommendations.
GISP was established in 1986 as a voluntary surveillance project and now involves 5 regional laboratories and 30 publicly funded sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics around the country. The STD clinics submit up to 25 gonococcal specimens (or isolates) per month to the regional laboratories, which measure the ability of the specimens to resist the effects of multiple antibiotics. Limited demographic and clinical information corresponding to the isolates (and that do not allow identification of the patient) are submitted directly by the clinics to CDC.
During 1986-2015, GISP has demonstrated the ability to effectively achieve its objectives. GISP has tracked penicillin and tetracycline resistance and identified the emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance. Increased prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant
Under the GISP protocol, each of the 30 clinics submit an average of 20 isolates per clinic per month (
Each of the 5 Regional laboratories receives and processes approximately 20 isolates from each referring clinic per month (
The total estimated annual burden hours are 8,628. Respondents receive federal funds to participate in this project. There are no additional costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Restrictions on Interstate Travel of Persons (42 CFR part 70) (OMB Control No. 0920-0488, expiration, 3/31/2016)— Revision—Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This revision to an existing information collection request is intended to ensure that CDC can continue collect pertinent information related to communicable disease or deaths that occur aboard conveyances during interstate travel within the United States, as authorized under 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70. Additionally, CDC is requesting approval to use the Passenger Locator Form in the event that travelers on domestic flights within the United States need to be contacted for public health follow-up.
The intended use of the information is to ensure that CDC can assess and respond to reports of communicable disease or death that occur on conveyances engaged in interstate travel, and assist state and local health authorities if an illness or death occurs that poses a risk to public health. Generally, the primary source of this information is aircraft and travelers moving within the United States.
This revision makes several modification to this information collection. They are as follows: In current practice, CDC does not process applications for travel permits using the Restriction On Travel Of Persons Multipurpose Application Form Under the Provisions of 42 CFR part 70 (aka Ill Person Travel Permit); therefore the information collections under 42 CFR 70.3, Application to the State of destination for a permit, Copy of material submitted by applicant and permit issued by State health authority (Attending physician), and Copy of material submitted by applicant and permit issued by State health authority (State health authority) are being removed. Similarly, information collections under 42 CFR 70.5, Application for a permit to move from State to State while in the communicable period (Attending physician) and Application for a permit to move from State to State while in the communicable period (Traveler) are also being removed. The issuance of travel restrictions is a collaborative process between public health partners,
CDC is also requesting an adjustment to the burden associated with reports of communicable disease or death from domestic conveyances. CDC is reducing the burden from 15 minutes per report to 7 minutes. This is due to the facilitation of reporting using electronic means,
Finally, CDC is requesting the addition of the Passenger Locator Form to this information collection. CDC currently has approval to collect the Passenger Locator Form from travelers aboard international flights under OMB Control Number 0920-0134. CDC is requesting approval to collect passenger contact and locating information for travelers aboard domestic flights within the United States.
The resulting change in burden is a reduction of 3,611 hours.
CDC anticipates this information collection will result in 90 total burden hours from 1,000 respondents. There is no burden to respondents other than the time required to complete and send the requested information to CDC. The estimated annualized burden is 90 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for FULYZAQ and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product FULYZAQ (crofelemer). FULYZAQ is indicated for the symptomatic relief of non-infectious diarrhea in adult patients with HIV/AIDS on anti-retroviral therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for FULYZAQ (U.S. Patent No. 7,323,195) from Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 23, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of FULYZAQ represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for FULYZAQ is 7,784 days. Of this time, 7,391 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 393 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for SIRTURO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product SIRTURO (bedaquiline). SIRTURO is indicated for combination therapy in adults (≥18 years) with pulmonary multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for SIRTURO (U.S. Patent No. 7,498,343) from Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 27, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SIRTURO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for SIRTURO is 2,213 days. Of this time, 2,030 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 183 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 741 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for ELIQUIS and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product ELIQUIS (apixaban). ELIQUIS is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for ELIQUIS (U.S. Patent No. 6,967,208) from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 27, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ELIQUIS represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ELIQUIS is 3,685 days. Of this time, 3,227 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 458 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,424 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM. ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM is indicated for patients aged 25 years and older with bare or no light perception vision caused by advanced retinitis pigmentosa. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 7,668,599) from Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 22, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ARGUS II VISUAL STIMULATION SYSTEM is 2,282 days. Of this time, 1,630 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 652 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,735 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by February 8, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
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. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
As part of its commitments in PDUFA V, FDA established a new review Program to promote greater transparency and increased communication between the FDA review team and the applicant on the most innovative products reviewed by the Agency. The Program applies to all NMEs, NDAs, and original BLAs that are received from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2017. The Program is described in detail in section II.B of the document entitled “PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017” (the Commitment Letter) (available at
The goals of the Program are to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the first review cycle and decrease the number of review cycles necessary for approval so that patients have timely access to safe, effective, and high-quality new drugs and biologics. A key aspect of the Program is an interim and final assessment that will evaluate how well the parameters of the Program have achieved the intended goals. The PDUFA V Commitment Letter specifies that the assessments be conducted by an independent contractor and that they include interviews of pharmaceutical manufacturers who submit NMEs, NDAs, and original BLAs to the Program in PDUFA V. The contractor for the assessments of the Program is Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), and the statement of work for the assessments is available at
In accordance with the PDUFA V Commitment Letter, FDA contracted with ERG to conduct independent interviews of applicants after FDA issues a first-cycle action for applications reviewed under the Program. The purpose of these interviews is to collect feedback from applicants on the success of the Program in increasing review transparency and communication during the review process. ERG will anonymize and aggregate sponsor responses prior to inclusion in the assessments and any presentation materials at public meetings. FDA will publish ERG's assessments (with interview results and findings) in the
FDA typically reviews approximately 40 to 45 NMEs, NDAs, and original BLAs per year. ERG interviews 1 to 3 sponsor representatives at a time for each application that receives a first-cycle action from FDA, up to 135 sponsor representatives per year. ERG conducts a pretest of the interview protocol with five respondents. FDA estimates that it will take 1.0 to 1.5 hours to complete the pretest, for a total of a maximum of 7.5 hours. We estimate that up to 135 respondents will take part in the post-action interviews each year, with each interview lasting 1.0 to 1.5 hours, for a total of a maximum of 202.5 hours. Thus, the total estimated annual burden is 210 hours. FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with similar interviews with the regulated community.
Thus, FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for VERAFLOX and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that animal drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions”.
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the animal drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product VERAFLOX (pradofloxacin). VERAFLOX is indicated for treatment of skin infections in cats caused by susceptible strains of
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for VERAFLOX is 3,285 days. Of this time, 3,235 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 50 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,901 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking public input from state and local governments, community based organizations, academic institutions, professional organizations, advocacy groups, private industry, and other non-federal stakeholders on activities undertaken in 2014-2015 in support of the goals of the national Action Plan for the Prevention, Care, and Treatment of Viral Hepatitis.
All responses must be received at the address provided below, no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on February 8, 2016.
Electronic responses are strongly preferred and may be addressed to
Corinna Dan, RN, MPH, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, (202) 401-9581.
The updated comprehensive national action plan,
The updated Action Plan describes four main goals to be achieved by 2020:
• Increase in the proportion of persons who are aware of their hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, from 33% to 66%.
• Increase in the proportion of persons who are aware of their hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, from 45% to 66%.
• Reduce by 25% the number of new cases of HCV infection.
• Eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HBV.
This request for information seeks public comment on several key areas with respect to non-federal efforts undertaken throughout calendar years 2014-2015 that are consistent with the four main goals of the Viral Hepatitis Action Plan. Comments are sought on (but not limited to) the following:
1. Describe the type of organization or group with which you are affiliated (
2. What is the most significant need your community/clients experience with respect to combating viral hepatitis?
3. What activities conducted in 2014 and 2015 demonstrated the greatest advances toward reaching the goals of the Viral Hepatitis Action Plan? Responses are invited (but not limited to) viral hepatitis activities in the following areas:
a. Raising awareness about viral hepatitis among the general public, specific targeted populations, and/or community leaders;
b. Training and/or increasing capacity of health care providers to prevent, diagnose, treat viral hepatitis;
c. Developing strategies to promote timely viral hepatitis diagnosis and linkage to care;
d. Developing/implementing clinical decision support tools and/or improved protocols in clinical settings that improve viral hepatitis health outcomes;
e. Implementing strategies to educate women of child-bearing age and high risk groups about mother-to-infant transmission of hepatitis B;
f. Reaching people who inject drugs with viral hepatitis information and services;
g. Improving viral hepatitis infection prevention awareness and initiatives in medical settings;
h. Developing strategies to foster stakeholder collaboration and sustainable programs; and
i. Other (please specify).
4. Please include relevant information such as the dates of implementation; names of collaborating organizational partners; related Action Plan goal(s); geographic area and populations served, quantitative findings and outcomes such as number of tests done, proportion of positives identified; and links to online tools, resources, and publications.
Please limit responses to four pages, single-sided, double spaced, 10 point font.
Selected activities will be compiled and made available to federal partners, stakeholders, and the public in order to foster further expansion, innovation, and collaboration toward achieving the goals of the Viral Hepatitis Action Plan. Reponses to this RFI will also be used to inform future HHS strategic planning and implementation.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that false data were included in the following eleven (11) publications:
ORI found that Respondent falsified and/or fabricated data by reporting the results of Western blot experiments and mouse imaging experiments that examined interactions between multiple histone deacetylase and/or proteasome inhibitors in several cancer models. Specifically, Respondent duplicated, reused, and/or relabeled Western blot panels and mouse images and claimed they represented different controls and/or experimental results in:
Dr. Dasmahapatra has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed:
(1) To exclude himself for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the Agreement from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376
(2) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for period of three (3) years, beginning on November 5, 2015; and
(3) That the following publications will be retracted or corrected:
Acting Director, Division of Investigative Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
30-Day notice of information collection for review; G-79A; information relating to beneficiary of Private Bill; OMB Control No. 1653-0026.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Danielle Garcia, Branch Chief, Subsidy Oversight Branch, Assisted Housing Oversight Division, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Multifamily Family Self-Sufficiency (MF FSS) is a HUD program that enables families living in multifamily assisted housing to increase their earned income and reduce their dependence on public assistance programs. MF FSS promotes the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of HUD rental assistance programs with public and private resources, to enable eligible families to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency.
HUD's Appropriations Act of 2015 allows owners of privately owned multifamily properties with a Section 8 contract to voluntarily make a Family Self-Sufficiency program available to assisted tenants in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, including those procedures permitting tenants to accrue escrow funds in accordance with section 23(d)(2) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Owners of privately-owned HUD assisted multifamily housing can voluntarily establish and operate a MF FSS program at their housing sites. Participation in the MF FSS program is voluntary for families living in these properties.
FSS families are referred to services and educational opportunities that can lead to improved employment and earned income. Such services might include child care, transportation, education, job training, employment counseling, financial literacy, and homeownership counseling.
Families entering the FSS program work with a case manager to develop goals that will lead to self-sufficiency within a 5-year period. These goals may include education, specialized training, and job readiness, placement, and career advancement activities. Families sign a five year contract of participation (CoP) with the owner. Goals for each participating family member are set out in Individual Training and Services plans (ITSP) that are part of the CoP. When the family meets its goals and completes its FSS contract, the family becomes eligible to receive funds deposited in an escrow account.
The owner establishes an interest-bearing escrow account for each participating family. If a family's earned income and rental payments increase as a result of participation in the FSS, the owner will credit the incremental earned income amount to the family's escrow account. Once a family successfully graduates from the program, they may access the escrow funds and use them for any purpose.
Owners of privately-owned HUD assisted multifamily housing who voluntarily establish and operate a MF FSS program at their housing sites.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
Consistent with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended, this notice invites interested persons to submit proposed changes to update and revise HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. These proposed changes will be submitted to the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) for review and consideration as part of its responsibility to provide periodic recommendations to HUD to adopt, revise, and interpret the HUD standards.
To ensure consideration, the deadline for submitting proposed
Proposed changes to the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards are to be submitted to the following URL address:
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 604(a) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 5401
Today's notice requests that interested persons provide proposed changes for revising or updating HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. Consistent with the Act, recommendations are requested that further HUD's efforts to increase the quality, durability, safety and affordability of manufactured homes; facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes and increase homeownership for all Americans; and encourage cost-effective and innovative construction techniques for manufactured homes. To permit the MHCC to fully consider the proposed changes, commenters are encouraged to provide at least the following information:
• The specific section of the current Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards that require revision or update; or whether the recommendation would require a new standard;
• Specific detail regarding the recommendation including a statement of the problem intended to be corrected or addressed by the recommendation, how the recommendation would resolve or address the problem, and the basis of the recommendation; and
• Information regarding whether the recommendation would result in increased costs to manufacturers or consumers and the value of the benefits derived from HUD's implementation of the recommendation, should be provided and discussed to the extent feasible.
The Act requires that an administering organization administer the process for the MHCC's development and interpretation of the Federal Standards and Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. The administering organization that has been selected by HUD to administer this process is Home Innovation Research Labs, Inc. This Notice requests that proposed revisions to the Federal standards be submitted to the MHCC for consideration through the administering organization, Home Innovation Research Labs, Inc. at the following URL address:
The information collection requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and assigned OMB Control Number 2535-0116. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before January 11, 2016.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Patricia Henry, Historian, National Historic Landmark Program, at
National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are nationally significant historic places (buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts) designated by the Secretary of the Interior, because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Today, just over 2,500 historic places bear this national
The Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-467) directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), through the National Park Service, to survey historic and archeological sites, buildings, and objects to determine those that possess exceptional value in commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States. Designation as an NHL:
• Ensures that stories of nationally important historic events, places, or persons are recognized and preserved for the benefit of all citizens.
• May provide the property's historic character with a measure of protection against any project initiated by the Federal Government.
• May ensure eligibility for grants, tax credits, and other opportunities to maintain a property's historic character.
In accordance with the law and 36 CFR part 65, private citizens, businesses, Federal agencies, State and local public agencies, and Indian tribes may submit nominations for NHL designation. Instructions for submitting a letter of inquiry and completing NPS Form 10-934 are available on the NHL Web site at
Prior to nominating a property for NHL designation, respondents must send a letter of inquiry to the NPS. The letter introduces the property to the NHL Program staff and serves as a formal, written record of initiating the NHL designation process. It provides an overview of the property, its historic significance, and its historic integrity, including, but not limited to:
• Historic importance of the property. What nationally significant story does the property tell?
• Current condition and integrity of the property. Has the property undergone major alterations since the historic period? If so, how extensive are these alterations?
• Support of the property owner. Is the property already listed in the National Register of Historic Places?
• Supporting documents, such as photographs or brochures.
• Name and Location of Property.
• Significance Data (NHL criteria, criteria exceptions, NHL themes, period(s) of significance, significant person(s), cultural affiliation, historic contexts, designer/creator/architect/builder, etc.).
• Sensitive Information (resources, such as archeological sites, that would be adversely affected by amateur excavation or vandalism by the general public if the location were disclosed).
• Geographical Data (acreage, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid references or latitude/longitude coordinates, and boundaries for the property).
• Significance Statement and Discussion (narrative statement based on documentary research of the property and the specific assessment of how the property qualifies for designation as an NHL).
• Property Description and Statement of Integrity (classifies the property by ownership of the property, type of property, and the number and nature of resources comprising the property).
• Major Bibliographic References (sources from which the documentation given on the form was compiled and the assessment of the property's significance was made).
• Contact Information for Form Preparer.
We review the forms to evaluate the eligibility of the property being nominated and submit them to the Secretary of the Interior's National Park System Advisory Board. The Board recommends those properties that meet the criteria for NHL designation to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary decides whether or not to designate a property as an NHL.
On July 30, 2012, we published in the
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB and us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 31068) and determined on September 4, 2015 that it would conduct expedited reviews (80 FR 57204, September 22, 2015).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on December 4, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4584 (December 2015), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Neology, Inc. on December 4, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio frequency identification (“RFID”) products and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS, Inc. of McLean, VA; Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Holding Corp.of McLean, VA; Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Technologies of McLean, VA; Kapsch TrafficCom U.S. Corp. of McLean, VA; Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp. of McLean, VA; Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc. of Canada; Star Systems International, Ltd. of Hong Kong and STAR RFID Co., Ltd. of Thailand. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3104”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
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/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on September 3, 2015, Cody Laboratories, Inc., 601 Yellowstone Avenue, Cody, Wyoming 82414 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale 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 1301.34(a) on or before January 11, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before January 11, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 19, 2015, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 3711 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
On December 2, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii in the lawsuit entitled
The United States' Complaint asserts claims against Aloha under Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) and section 311(b) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b). Aloha operates a bulk gasoline terminal in Hilo, Hawaii (the “Terminal”). The Terminal receives petroleum products via pipelines connected to the local marine port and stores the products in large tanks prior to transfer into tank trucks at the Terminal's loading rack. The Complaint alleges that Aloha failed to install a vapor collection system, limit emissions, and conduct a performance test, as required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. Under the CWA, the Complaint alleges that Aloha failed to construct a secondary containment structure that is sufficiently impervious to contain oil, or to hold oil until cleanup can occur. 40 CFR 112.7(c), 112.8(c)(2).
Under the Consent Decree, Aloha will pay a civil penalty of $650,000, will “permanently close” the Terminal as defined in 40 CFR 112.2, and certify that it has ceased operating the loading racks there. Aloha will also install improved containment liners at five of its other facilities.
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 $8.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On December 1, 2015, a proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the bankruptcy proceeding entitled
The Settlement Agreement resolves a claim against debtor Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company (“EFCH”), as the alleged corporate successor to former mine operators, asserted by the United States on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”). The claim sought to recover costs incurred and expected to be incurred in the future by the United States in response to releases and threats of releases of hazardous substances at or in connection with the Faith, Hope, Doris, and Isabella Uranium Mine Sites, located in McKinley County, New Mexico (“New Mexico Sites”).
Under the Settlement Agreement, EPA will receive either (1) a distribution of $2,000,000 upon confirmation and consummation of EFCH's and other affiliated debtors' Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $13.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL or Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning the Form ETA-9141,
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before February 8, 2016.
Submit written comments to Renata Adjibodou, Center Director, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Suite 12-100, Employment & Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-513-7495. Email:
The information collection (IC) is required by sections 203(b)(3); 212(a)(5)(A); 212(m), (n), (p), (t); and 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(3); 1182(a)(5)(A); 1182(m), (n), (p), (t); and 1184(c)) and 8 CFR 214.2(h). The INA requires the Secretary of Labor to certify, among other things, that any foreign worker seeking to enter the United States (U.S.) for the purpose of performing certain skilled or unskilled labor temporarily or permanently will not, by doing so, adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. Before the Secretary of Labor can certify that wages for U.S. workers have not been adversely affected, he must ensure that the wages being paid the foreign workers are the same as those being offered and paid to U.S. workers.
The information contained in the Form ETA-9141 is the basis for the Secretary's determination of the wage employers must pay foreign workers to protect against an adverse effect on wages as a result of the employment of a foreign worker. Prior to submitting requests for most labor certifications or a labor condition applications to the Secretary of Labor, employers must obtain a prevailing wage for the job opportunity based on the place of employment in order to ensure that U.S. workers' wages are not being adversely affected by paying foreign workers less than the prevailing wage. Form ETA-9141,
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record. Commenters are encouraged not to submit sensitive information (
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart I).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by February 8, 2016.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Subpart I specifies several paperwork requirements which are described below.
Section 1915.152(b) requires the employer to assess work activities to determine whether there are hazards present, or likely to be present, which necessitate the worker's use of PPE. If such hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer must: (1) Select the type of PPE that will protect the affected workers from the hazards identified in the occupational hazard assessment; (2) communicate PPE selection decisions to the affected workers; (3) select PPE that properly fits each affected worker; and (4) maintain documentation to verify that the required occupational hazard assessment has been performed. The verification must contain the following information: Occupation or trade assessed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and the name of the person performing the hazard assessment.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection of information requirements contained in the Standard on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart I). The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 120 burden hours (from 52 hours to 172 hours). This increase is the result of identifying additional establishments that have been covered by the Shipyard Employment PPE Standard.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Suzanne H. Plimpton at (703) 292-7556 or send email to
NSF 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.
The Graduate Research Fellowship Program uses several sources of information in assessing and documenting program performance and impact. These sources include reports from program evaluation, the GRFP Committee of Visitors, and data compiled from the applications. In addition, GRFP Fellows submit annual activity reports to NSF.
The GRFP Completion report is proposed as a continuing component of the annual reporting requirement for the program. This report, submitted by the GRFP Institution, certifies the completion status of Fellows at the institution (
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before February 8, 2016.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
To better serve the Returned Volunteer Population, Peace Corps Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services (3GL) has developed a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (RPCV) Portal. This Portal will allow RPCVs to update their contact information, share stories, request official documentation, view their service history, and enroll in outreach and marketing campaigns.
a. Number of Respondents (first year): 50,000.
b. Number of Respondents (annually): 3,000.
c. Frequency of response: 2 times.
d. Completion time: 5 minutes.
e. Annual burden hours (first year): 8,333 hours.
f. Annual burden hours (annually): 500 hours.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 156 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-22 and CP2016-28 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 156 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-22 and CP2016-28 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 23 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-26 and CP2016-32 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 23 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-26 and CP2016-32 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 14, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
December 4, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.
Washington, DC, via Teleconference.
1. Strategic Issues.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify the monthly volume thresholds in Tiers 2 and 3 in the Priority Customer Rebate Program (the “Program”).
Currently, the Exchange credits each Member the per contract amount resulting from each Priority Customer
The amount of the rebate is calculated beginning with the first executed contract at the applicable threshold per contract credit with rebate payments made at the highest achieved volume tier for each contract traded in that month. For example, under the current Program, a Member that executes a number of Priority Customer contracts above 1.75% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed options during a particular calendar month, such Member will currently receive a credit of $0.21 for each Priority Customer contract (other than Select Symbols) executed during that month, even though there are lower incremental percentages for lower volume tiers leading up to the 1.75% volume threshold.
The current Priority Customer Rebate Program table designates the following monthly volume tiers and corresponding per contract credits:
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (1)(a)(iii) of its Fee Schedule to reflect a new schedule of percentage thresholds of national customer volume. Specifically, the new thresholds will be as set forth in the following table:
The Exchange believes that the proposed new monthly volume tiers should provide incentives for Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange.
The proposed new monthly volume thresholds will apply to multiply listed options classes, including MIAX Select Symbols.
All other aspects of the Program will remain unchanged. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the per contract credit for PRIME Agency Orders. Consistent with the current Fee Schedule, the Exchange will continue to aggregate the contracts resulting from Priority Customer orders transmitted and executed electronically on the Exchange from affiliated Members for purposes of the thresholds above, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on MIAX, the Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in multiply-listed options for the duration of the outage. A Member may request to receive its credit under the Priority Customer Rebate Program as a separate direct payment.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that increased Priority Customer volume will attract more liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants. Increased retail customer order flow should attract professional liquidity providers (Market Makers), which in turn should make the MIAX marketplace an attractive venue where Market Makers will submit narrow quotations with greater size, deepening and enhancing the quality of the MIAX marketplace. This should provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads for other market participants and result in a corresponding increase in order flow from such other market participants.
The specific volume thresholds of the Program's tiers are set based upon business determinations and an analysis
The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Program and the proposed new tier structure should improve market quality for all market participants. The proposed changes to the Program are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they apply equally to all Priority Customer orders. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Market participants want to trade with Priority Customer order flow. To the extent Priority Customer order flow is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange including sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order flow. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by encouraging Members to direct their Priority Customer orders to the Exchange, which should enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts traded on MIAX. Respecting the competitive position of non-Priority Customers, the Exchange believes that this rebate program should provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the number of trading opportunities on MIAX for all participants, including non-Priority Customers, who will be able to compete for such opportunities. This should benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it encourages market participants to direct their customer order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, enhancing the existing volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow is consistent with the goals of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition, because market participants will have another additional pricing consideration in determining where to execute orders and post liquidity if they factor the benefits of the proposed rebate program into the determination.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an email
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit business development companies (“BDCs”) and certain closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Alcentra Capital Corporation, 200 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10166.
Vanessa M. Meeks, Senior Counsel, or Melissa R. Harke, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Existing Regulated Funds were each organized as a corporation under the General Corporate Laws of the State of Maryland. The Company operates as an externally-managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act.
2. The Subsidiary is a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub (as defined below), the sole business purpose of which is to hold one or more investments on behalf of the Company. The Subsidiary is a Delaware entity.
3. The Existing Co-Investment Affiliate is a Delaware limited partnership. In reliance on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, none of the Co-Investment Affiliates (as defined below) will be registered under the Act.
4. Alcentra NY is a Delaware limited liable company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Alcentra NY serves as investment adviser to the Company pursuant to an investment advisory agreement and also serves as investment adviser to the Existing Co-Investment Affiliate. Alcentra Limited is incorporated in the United Kingdom and Wales and is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Alcentra Limited is proposed to serve as a sub-adviser to BAMSCF. Dreyfus is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York that is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Dreyfus is proposed to serve as investment manager to BAMSCF.
5. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit a Regulated Fund
6. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
7. In selecting investments for the Regulated Funds, an Adviser will consider only the investment objective, investment policies, investment position, capital available for investment and other factors relevant to each Regulated Fund. Each of the Co-Investment Affiliates has or will have investment objectives and strategies that are similar to or overlap with the Objectives and Strategies
8. After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), other than in the case of pro rata Dispositions (as defined below) and Follow-On Investments,
9. All subsequent activity, meaning either to (a) sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of an investment (collectively, a “Disposition”) or (b) complete a Follow-On Investment, in respect of an investment acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction will also be made in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the application. With respect to the pro rata Dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata Disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Co-Investment Affiliate and Regulated Fund in such Disposition or Follow-On Investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Disposition or Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro rata Dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any such Disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of
10. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than indirectly through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
11. Under condition 14, if an Adviser, its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Co-Investment Affiliates (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the condition. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Adviser or its principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Independent Directors will evaluate and approve any such voting trust or proxy adviser, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the Regulated Fund's shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the other Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates may be deemed to be a person related to a Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment company from participating in joint transactions with the company unless the Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any Order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for a Co-Investment Affiliate or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the applicable Adviser(s) will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the applicable Adviser(s) deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser(s) will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser(s) to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the amount proposed to be invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participating party's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser(s) will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's available capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser(s) will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the amount proposed to be invested by each Regulated Fund and each Co-Investment Affiliate to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Co-Investment Affiliates only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its stockholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its stockholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's stockholders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by the other Regulated Funds or any Co-Investment Affiliates would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of any other Regulated Fund or Co-Investment Affiliate; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Co-Investment Affiliate, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the applicable Adviser(s) agree to, and do, provide periodic reports to the Board of the Regulated Fund with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Fund, or any Co-Investment Affiliate, or any affiliated person of either receives in connection with the right of any other Regulated Fund or a Co-Investment Affiliate to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Co-Investment Affiliates (which each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Co-Investment Affiliates, the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by sections 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The applicable Adviser(s) will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8 below,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Co-Investment Affiliate. The grant to a Co-Investment Affiliate or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Co-Investment Affiliate or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Adviser(s) will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the Disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such Disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to any participating Co-Investment Affiliates and any other Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Co-Investment Affiliate and Regulated Fund in such Disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such Dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all Dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the applicable Adviser(s) will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Co-Investment Affiliate and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such Disposition.
8. (a) If any Co-Investment Affiliate or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Adviser(s) will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Co-Investment Affiliate and each Regulated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all Follow-On Investments made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the applicable Adviser(s) will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the Follow-On Investment is not based on the Co-Investment Affiliates' and the Regulated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser(s) to be invested by each Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the participating Co-Investment Affiliates in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity, then the amount to be invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participating party's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Independent Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by the Co-Investment Affiliates and the other Regulated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Independent Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act), of any Co-Investment Affiliate.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the 1933 Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective advisory agreements with the Co-Investment Affiliates and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the participating Co-Investment Affiliates and the participating Regulated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or being acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party (such as the trustee of a voting trust or a proxy adviser) when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any matters requiring approval by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities, as defined in section 2(a)(42) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 8-A (17 CFR 249.208a) is a registration statement used to register a class of securities under Section 12(b) or Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 7620A to modify certain fees applicable to members that use the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is a facility of FINRA that is operated by Nasdaq, Inc. (“NASDAQ”)
FINRA and NASDAQ are in the process of amending the LLC Agreement to reflect the name change, and FINRA will file a separate proposed rule change to update the FINRA manual accordingly.
Pursuant to the FINRA Rule 7600A Series, FINRA members that are FINRA/Nasdaq TRF participants are charged fees and may qualify for fee caps (Rule 7620A) and also may qualify for revenue sharing payments for trade reporting to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF (Rule 7610A). These rules are administered by NASDAQ, in its capacity as the Business Member and operator of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF on behalf of FINRA,
Pursuant to Rule 7620A, FINRA members are charged fees for “Non-Comparison/Accept (Non-Match/Compare)” trades. Such trades are defined as transactions that are not subject to the ACT Comparison process, and they may be submitted as media or non-media,
Under the current fee cap, a FINRA member that does not conduct a business whereby it is the Executing Party does not have the opportunity to receive a fee cap. Currently, FINRA members are charged Media/Contra fees of $0.013 multiplied by the number of Media/Contra Reports during the month. Similarly, FINRA members are charged Non-Media/Contra fees of $0.013 multiplied by the number of Non-Media/Contra Reports during the month. If a FINRA member is eligible under the existing cap, the maximum monthly charge is $0.013 multiplied by 2,500 (for Tape A, B or C) multiplied by number of trading days in a month. Without the proposed fee cap, a FINRA member that does not conduct a business whereby it is the Executing Party may significantly exceed the cap limit.
Consequently, NASDAQ, as the Business Member, has determined to provide an alternative monthly fee cap of $5,000 per Tape (A, B or C) applied to trades in each fee category. Eligibility for the new fee cap is based on a FINRA member's trade reporting of Media/Contra trades to the TRF and its participation on an alternative trading system registered pursuant to Regulation ATS
Although the proposed fee cap is a “flat” cap set at $5,000 and the existing fee cap is based on a calculation, they are comparable in terms of the limitation of total fees paid. For example, a member that qualifies under the existing fee cap would pay no more than $3,565 per month in the securities of a single Tape for trade reports (depending on the total number of days in the month).
NASDAQ, as the Business Member, has designed the proposed fee cap to make pricing more competitive to attract and retain participants on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. NASDAQ also has determined to introduce the proposed fee cap in recognition of a new kind of trading behavior that has emerged in the marketplace. Specifically, some firms that act as market makers route orders to an ATS for execution within the ATS. Such market makers may have trade volume reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF; however, these executions would not qualify the market maker for a fee cap under the existing rules because the ATS is the Executing Party on the trades. Accordingly, FINRA, as the SRO Member, is proposing to amend Rule 7620A to reflect the proposed new Media/Contra fee cap.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The effective date will be the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed fee cap is available to all FINRA members that use the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF and meet the threshold requirements to qualify for the terms of the fee cap. While only some Contra Parties will qualify for the proposed cap and thus see a reduction in their FINRA/Nasdaq TRF trade reporting fees, NASDAQ, as the Business Member, has advised FINRA that the proposed cap is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee cap will most benefit those Contra Parties that have significant volume on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. These Contra Parties currently may pay larger trade reporting fees than firms with comparable Executing Party volume that qualify for the current fee cap.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The fee proposal would not impose new fees or fee rate increases on any member firm, and will reduce the fees paid by some members. NASDAQ has advised FINRA that the estimated fee savings to member firms based on this proposal would be in the range of $0-$20,000 per month per firm based on overall market and participant activity and number of trading days in the month. NASDAQ, as the Business Member, has further advised FINRA that, based on current trading practices, NASDAQ estimates that approximately two to five member firms would have been able to take advantage of the fee reductions associated with this proposal, had they been in place.
FINRA notes that its members have trade reporting alternatives other than the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, so to the extent the proposed changes are viewed as burdensome among market participants, those participants may choose not to avail themselves of the fee cap and maintain the status quo with respect to fees or adjust their trading practices. This would permit members to mitigate any direct or indirect costs imposed by this proposal. Moreover, the proposal may promote competition among FINRA members by reducing the fee burden on certain FINRA members who are unable to qualify for the existing fee cap, and FINRA members can choose their trading partners, which determination may in part be based on the fees of the particular TRF applicable to Contra Parties. Lastly, FINRA does not believe that the proposed fee cap burdens competition among reporting facilities because each is free to adjust their respective fees to remain competitive with the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, to the extent the proposed fee cap makes the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF a more attractive facility on which to report trades.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-053. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 18 (17 CFR 249.218) is a registration form used for by a foreign government or political subdivision to register securities for listing on a U.S. exchange. The information collected is intended to ensure that the information required by the Commission to be filed permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability of the information. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. Form 18 takes approximately 8 hours per response and is filed by approximately 5 respondents for a total of 40 annual burden hours. It is estimated that 100% of the total reporting burden is prepared by the company.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-1 (17 CFR 269.1) is a statement of eligibility and qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-2 (17 CFR 269.2) is a statement of eligibility of an individual trustee under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. The information is used to determine whether the individual is qualified to serve as a trustee under the indenture. Form T-2 is filed on occasion. The information required by Form T-2 is mandatory. This information is publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-2 takes approximately 9 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 9 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 9 hours per response (2 hours) is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 18 hours (2 hours per response × 9 responses).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of New York.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14567 8 and for economic injury is 14568 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of Maryland.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14563 8 and for economic injury is 14564 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Maryland, Virginia.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of West Virginia.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14559 8 and for economic injury is 14560 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is West Virginia.
U.S. Small Business Administration
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of Connecticut.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14561 8 and for economic injury is 14562 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 8.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4241-DR), dated 10/05/2015.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina, dated 10/05/2015 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 01/04/2016.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meetings.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the 2nd quarter meetings of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.
The meetings for the 1st quarter will be held on the following dates:
These meetings will be held via conference call.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.
The purpose of these meetings is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board:
The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Monika Nixon by fax or email. Her contact information is Monika Nixon, Program Specialist, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202-205-7310, Fax 202-481-5624, email,
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Monika Nixon at the information above.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of Rhode Island.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14569 8 and for economic injury is 14570 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of North Carolina.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14553 8 and for economic injury is 14554 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is North Carolina.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of Maryland.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14551 and for economic injury is 14552.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Maryland, Delaware, Virginia.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the State of New Jersey.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14565 8 and for economic injury is 14566 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Small Business Administration
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14555 8 and for economic injury is 14556 0.
The Commonwealth which received an EIDL Declaration # is Puerto Rico.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice that the U.S. Small Business Administration is accepting applications for disaster loans from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
12/02/2015.
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 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:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14557 8 and for economic injury is 14558 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Virginia, Maryland.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice is a Request for Information (RFI) to support the FHWA in the identification of proven, market-ready innovations for potential deployment through the fourth round of the Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative in 2017-2018.
Responses to this RFI should be submitted by January 31, 2016. The FHWA will consider late-filed responses to the extent practicable.
Submit responses by electronic mail to
For questions about the program discussed herein, contact Julie Zirlin, FHWA Center for Accelerating Innovation at (202) 366-9105 or
The purpose of this RFI is to obtain information from State, local, and industry partners and the public regarding proven processes or technologies that have the potential to provide efficiencies in the planning,
This is not a solicitation for proposals, applications, proposal abstracts, or quotations. The purpose of this RFI notice is to conduct market research to identify proven innovations and processes. This RFI must not be construed as a commitment by the Federal Government to make an award, nor does the Federal Government intend to directly or indirectly pay for any information or responses submitted as a result of this RFI. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Federal Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used by the Federal Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Respondents should not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential.
Since its formation, FHWA has been a leader in technology transfer and innovation deployment. In 2009, FHWA launched the EDC initiative in cooperation with State, local, and industry partners to speed up the delivery of highway projects and create a broad culture of innovation within the highway community. Proven innovations and enhanced business processes promoted through EDC facilitate greater efficiency at the State and local levels, saving time, money, and resources that can be used to deliver more projects.
The EDC initiative is a State-based model to identify and rapidly deploy proven, yet underutilized innovations to shorten the project delivery process, enhance roadway safety, reduce traffic congestion, and improve environmental sustainability. Every 2 years, FHWA works with State transportation departments, local governments, tribes, private industry, and other stakeholders to identify a new set of innovative technologies and practices that merit widespread deployment.
After selecting EDC innovations for the 2-year deployment cycle, transportation leaders from across the country gather at regional summits to discuss and identify opportunities for implementing the innovations that best fit the needs of their respective State highway program. The information gained through the summits is then shared with public and private transportation stakeholders through State Transportation Innovation Councils that select and spearhead deployment of the innovations within the State. The FHWA provides technical assistance and resources to help States implement their chosen innovations and also monitors the national state-of-the practice for each of the promoted EDC innovations.
The EDC initiative has made a significant positive impact in accelerating the deployment of innovations and in building a culture of innovation within the highway community. Since EDC's inception, every State transportation agency has used 8 or more of the 32 innovations promoted through the initiative, and some have adopted over 20. Several of those innovations are now mainstream practices in many States, enhancing the highway system and benefiting travelers. By advancing 21st century solutions, the highway community is making every day count to ensure our roads and bridges are built better, faster, and smarter.
The following innovations are being promoted in the third round of EDC (EDC-3) in 2015-2016:
• 3D Engineered Models: Schedule, Cost and Post-Construction;
• Data-Driven Safety Analysis;
• e-Construction;
• Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge System;
• Improving Collaboration and Quality Environmental Documentation (eNEPA and IQED);
• Improving DOT and Railroad Coordination (SHRP2 R16);
• Locally Administered Federal-Aid Projects: Stakeholder Partnering;
• Regional Models of Cooperation;
• Road Diets (Roadway Reconfiguration);
• Smarter Work Zones; and
• Ultra-High Performance Concrete Connections for Prefabricated Bridge Elements.
Information about these innovations as well as those promoted through EDC-1 (2011-2012) and EDC-2 (2013-2014) are available at
The FHWA invites all sources to respond to this RFI. The FHWA seeks suggestions on proven, market-ready innovations and processes for potential widespread deployment through EDC-4 in 2017-2018 that address the criteria described below. In addition, FHWA seeks feedback on user experiences with specific, high-value innovations described below under the “Innovations of Interest” section and tentatively identified for accelerated deployment
There is no limit to the number of innovations that may be suggested by an individual or entity. The FHWA is seeking suggestions of broad categories of innovations and respondents should not submit suggestions for unique, proprietary, or patented products.
Responses for each suggested innovation or process should provide the following information:
1. Innovation category or name.
2. Point(s) of contact, title and organization name (if applicable), email address, and telephone number.
3. Brief description of the proven innovation or process.
4. Brief description of how the innovation addresses the following areas:
•
•
•
5. Example(s), including location and date, when the innovation was successfully applied in a transportation application and a description of the quantifiable performance benefits of the innovation in those applications.
6. List of any supporting specifications, guidelines, and/or procedures available to support technology transfer and national deployment.
7. List of agencies or entities that are “champions” for or regularly use the innovation.
The FHWA seeks feedback on user experiences with the following high-value innovations described below that are tentatively identified for accelerated deployment:
Insufficient TIM related data collection (
This innovation will help jurisdictions establish an integrated, multidisciplinary and ongoing TIM Performance Management program in order to institutionalize programs and measure results. There are tools to help collect and transmit performance data that can make the task immediate and less complicated. For example, smartphone technology and systems such as the Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS), can make data collection easy to capture. The responder can use mobile computing devices loaded with Web-based, secure software like TraCS in the field to collect data. The use of these same technologies can provide other benefits such as instantaneous transmission, automated analysis, and sharing of real time information, including pictures and video, that will not only enhance mitigation of traffic incidents, but enhance traveler information.
The Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measurement System helps agencies monitor how effectively traffic signals are meeting mobility, safety, and reliability goals. The system extracts high resolution data from existing traffic signal system infrastructure and allows it to be packaged in a flexible format to depict measures of system health, performance and quality of service. The measures provide information to promote quick decisionmaking in support of operations and maintenance objectives. The information produced by the system supports the needs of agency professionals involved in the day-to-day management of signal systems, leadership, legislators, first responders, and other mobility partners. In addition, signal timing performance can be used to model or track how an asset degrades over time and to identify the maintenance needed to sustain good, basic service. This technology can assist virtually all agencies that design, manage, operate, or maintain traffic signals to improve safety and performance.
Adverse weather conditions can dramatically impact the safety and operation of our Nation's roads. Inclement weather can result in increased crash risk, weather-related hazards, travel time delay and unreliability, decreased capacity, disrupted access, and increased operating and maintenance costs. Advances in Road Weather Management can benefit transportation agencies in deciding how to respond.
Several States have implemented Weather Responsive Traffic Management (WRTM) strategies. The WRTM includes a variety of advisory, control, and treatment strategies that incorporate traditional and advanced Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) data collection, processing, and decision-support tools to create actionable road weather information. These strategies can significantly improve an agency's ability to warn travelers of weather conditions and apply traffic control strategies to enhance safety, minimize delay, and maximize throughput.
Further enhancing an agency's ability to respond, Integrated Mobile Observations (IMO) weather sensors placed on State fleets provide vehicle-based data for better weather impact predictions in real time. This data can be integrated and processed to inform decisions by traffic operators, maintenance managers, and travelers. Pathfinder documents the collaborative benefits of DOTs, the National Weather Service (NWS), and private service providers to develop consistent messages for the traveling public. Pathfinder considers the weather, road surface, average traffic volumes, and effectiveness of mitigation efforts. This enables the NWS and local operating agencies to coordinate their efforts, directing the most impactful and actionable messages to the traveling public in the context of the local transportation system.
Part-time shoulder use is a relatively low-cost congestion management strategy whereby either the left or the right shoulder of a freeway is open to travel on a daily or repeated (
Part-time shoulder use supports Performance-Based Practical Design, an approach currently being advanced by many States. It preserves and maximizes existing capacity, is low cost relative to freeway widening, and can be implemented quickly with fewer environmental impacts than traditional capacity expansion. When combined with technology applications such as variable speed limits or lane control signals, part-time shoulder use can be further operated to enhance corridor mobility and safety.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) and medians/pedestrian crossing islands are evidence-based treatments that can improve pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations (
Interest in bicycling as a mode of transportation is growing across the
This innovation brings bicycle and pedestrian planning to the same level of comprehensive attention and understanding as is available for motorized modes. Bicycle and pedestrian planners use data, including bicycle and pedestrian counts, to evaluate and prioritize investments as part of a performance-based framework that supports network outcomes. The net effect is to make investments in bicycling and walking more cost-effective and beneficial to the public as interest in these modes is increasing.
The FHWA is extending its Traffic Monitoring Analysis System to receive bicycle and pedestrian data submissions from jurisdictions with count programs. This database is of great importance in observing trends in bicycling and walking, in facilitating further research on factors related to demand for bicycle and pedestrian travel, and in evaluating safety risk exposure of bicyclists and pedestrians.
Transportation projects require multiple Federal permits, approvals, and reviews, including consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to ensure that they are developed utilizing a safe and responsible approach and impacts to the environment and communities are sequentially avoided, minimized, and mitigated. The NEPA process is a framework for meeting environmental requirements, such as those under the Endangered Species Act, the General Bridge Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act. Synchronizing NEPA and other environmental and regulatory reviews helps to advance transportation projects. The recently released 2015 Red Book provides best practices, tools, and strategies for synchronization. The Red Book provides a “how‐to” on environmental review integration for practitioners at Federal agencies that conduct environmental reviews or manage permit applications, and for Federal, State, and local agencies that fund or develop transportation projects. It leverages proven techniques and lessons learned that can support more efficient and concurrent review processes.
There are new opportunities for construction partnering with increased use of information technology such as 3D modeling and e-Construction. Construction partnering is a project management process where State agencies, contractors, and other stakeholders create a team relationship of mutual trust. Together, they promote recognition and achievement of mutual and beneficial goals, communicate openly, and resolve problems. The result is successful completion of a quality project that is built on time, within budget, with safety as the number one priority—and is profitable to the contractors.
As new technologies and methods have emerged, State agencies and contractors now look to the digital jobsite as a means to improve efficiency and project performance while reducing construction waste in the delivery of projects. Enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration among stakeholders are vital to delivery of digital projects today. As a result, project success greatly relies on creating an environment where construction partnering is accepted as a better way of doing business.
A significant portion of all construction claims are related to geotechnical issues. Project constraints such as construction schedule, right-of-way or environmental concerns, and conditions such as soft or unsuitable ground can result in higher project costs and project delivery delays. Proactive and better informed decisionmaking regarding geotechnical solutions can assist agencies in addressing issues that pose a risk for claims or change orders in construction and delays in project delivery.
The second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) R02 project developed GeoTechTools, which contains a technology selection system to aid project managers, planners, resident engineers, consultants, and contractors in identifying potential solutions to project delivery issues. A vast amount of critically important information on geotechnical solutions has been collected, synthesized, integrated, and organized into the Web-based GeoTechTools product. Users save considerable time and effort on researching applicability of a solution, design guidance, specifications, quality assurance requirements, and cost estimating resources. The consistent and comprehensive tools provided in the GeoTechTools product allow any user to better identify and mitigate risk, leading to better informed decisions in all phases of project delivery.
The uncertainty of ground conditions at a project site is reduced by performing geotechnical characterization of the site. An inaccurate understanding of ground conditions may lead to wastefully conservative design, time consuming redesign, construction claims, change orders, or cost and schedule overruns. The importance and value of using reliable in situ test methods and reducing subsurface condition uncertainty for construction is captured in NCHRP Synthesis Report 484 (2015). The value of site characterization for design is demonstrated in new reliability-based design methods such as AASHTO Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (2014). A suite of proven subsurface investigation methods is available to establish a new game-changing standard of practice consistent with the revisions being made to the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigation and the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular #5: Geotechnical Site Characterization. This effort will focus on implementing the mainstream practice of targeted technologies for more reliable and cost-effective subsurface investigation programs for rapid project delivery with less risk of contract delay and escalation.
Collectively, the technologies represent seven of the most transformative and complimentary advancements within subsurface investigation practice. Their implementation nationally will reduce project delivery costs and risks and improve long-term performance.
Rivers, streams, and coastal waterbodies exhibit complex hydraulic characteristics that affect bridge and culvert design and operation, scour formation, stream stability, and overall infrastructure resiliency. Advanced Hydraulic 3D Modeling tools simulate hydrologic, hydraulic, and scour conditions at any aspect of transportation systems. These tools significantly increase the detail and accuracy of hydraulic related project planning, permitting, design, and simulation activities. Designers can use the tools to more accurately apply the safest and most cost effective transportation design to accommodate the hydraulic conditions of the structure. Use of this technology can also reduce costs of materials and quantities during a project's construction and operation.
The management of our Nation's highway infrastructure assets including bridges, pavements, and tunnels presents ongoing planning, operational, preservation, and economic challenges for Federal, State, tribal, and local transportation agencies. Data-driven condition information is an important part of managing and maintaining these assets in a state of good repair. Advancements in NDE applications over the last decade from hand-held tools to automated platforms can provide owners with more efficient, reliable, and cost-effective approaches to complement current inspection and evaluation practices.
Each NDE technology detects a specific type of defect. The defects identified range from those found at an early stage to the on-set of deterioration, providing infrastructure owners with information to develop cost-effective preservation and maintenance strategies. This can result in lower life-cycle structure costs, which are a savings for the owner and the user.
The condition of pavements and bridges across the country vary considerably, with many State DOTs struggling to maintain current service levels. A balanced approach that takes into consideration timing, desired level of service, and available funding is paramount to keeping our Nation's infrastructure in a “state of good repair.” There are several surface treatments for pavements and bridges that can be used to reach this goal.
Whether a highway pavement is constructed using concrete or asphalt, the structure will deteriorate over time. Many factors affect the performance of these pavements including loads (traffic), climatic conditions, and material quality. There are surface treatments available that extend the overall service life of both pavement types. The use of the right pavement surface treatments at the right time can improve the condition level and extend the performance of the pavement structure. For example, by maintaining and improving smoothness and ride at an acceptable level of service, a pavement structure can save the tax payers money and time and enhance safety.
The decks or slabs of bridges are vulnerable to the effects of mechanical wear from traffic, and environmental conditions such as rain, snow and ice. Consequently, decks and slabs require more maintenance and repair than any other component of the bridge. The most common bridge deck and slab material is concrete and its main cause of deterioration is corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Surface treatments such as deck washing, using crack sealers, fillers, waterproofing membranes and overlays can protect and enhance service life of bridge decks.
The MIT includes the following three highway maintenance items that have been proven and tested in the hands of highway maintenance workers to save time and money, while enhancing safety and operations efficiencies:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and FTA.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by FHWA and FTA that are final within the meaning of Federal transportation law. The actions relate to a proposed transportation project, the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project, located in the City of Seattle, Washington. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, FHWA and FTA are advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions announced herein for the listed transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before May 9, 2016.
Lindsey Handel, Urban Area Engineer, FHWA at (360) 753-9550,
Notice is hereby given that FHWA and FTA have taken final agency actions by issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project in Seattle, Washington.
The EA and FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]; the Federal transit statutes [49 U.S.C. Chapter 53].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 319].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544]; Anadromous Fish Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)-757(g)]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]; the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended [42 U.S.C. 61].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); Coastal Zone Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1451-1465]; Land and Water Conservation Fund [16 U.S.C. 4601-4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401-406]; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128].
8. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675]; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [PL 99-499]; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)].
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Nothing in this notice creates a cause of action under these Executive Orders.
This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
23 U.S.C. 139
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the renewal Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below are being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describe the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Safety, Safety Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On September 23, 2015, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requests (ICRs) and their expected burdens. The renewal requests are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
In an ongoing effort to conduct more thorough and more effective inspections of freight railroad equipment and to further enhance safe rail operations, FRA has developed a safety concern recommendation report form and a group of guidance checklist forms that facilitate railroad, rail car owner, and rail equipment manufacturer compliance with agency Railroad Safety Appliance Standards regulations. FRA will be obsoleting Forms FRA F 6180.4(a)-(q) and requesting OMB discontinue its current approval for these forms. FRA will be replacing these forms with new Forms FRA F 6180.161(a)-(k). The reason for the discontinuance of the previously approved forms and request for OMB approval of the new forms is due to the fact that 49 CFR part 231 is being supplemented and expanded to cover new types of cars. For these new types of cars, FRA will be following the Standard established by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Standard 2044 or S-2044.
When a request for sample car inspection incoming letter is provided by the customer, an abundant amount of information is submitted to FRA for review that may require a formal on-site inspection. The information contained in the letter includes several paragraphs to explain the cited Code of Federal Regulations that the customer believes related to the construction of the car. Since many cars today are considered a car of special construction, the type of car to be reviewed, many times the amount of details of information are supplied to support why the customer believes the car submitted is the nearest car to construction. An abundance of factors with justification to support the car type is included in the request. Some examples would be a Logo, Company Name, and signature block, specific drawings, reflectorization, engineering information such as test or modeling of components. Also, the request may include car reporting marks, the amount of cars that would be constructed in the car series. In addition, the request would provide the location of the inspection, contact person, title, and contact information. Currently, each request is written differently, but contains most of the information to process the request to completion.
The FRA region responsible for the sample car field sample car inspection
FRA Headquarters is responsible for gathering all the information from the request from the customer as well as assigning and forwarding the information to the Region. All the information is reviewed by the MP&E Specialist at Headquarters. The MP&E Specialist prepares a grid letter response for the MP&E Staff Director who then offers the response letter to the Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance. The formal response letter is then sent to the customer through the Control Correspondence Management (CCM) system.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of a Buy America waiver.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) received a request from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for a Buy America non-availability waiver for the procurement of a proposed innovative electronic platform track intrusion system (PTIDS). LACMTA seeks to procure the PTIDS for research and testing purposes to determine whether such a system will help to increase rail safety by identifying obstacles in the right-of-way. PTIDS uses radar transponder technology, such as sensors, to detect intrusions on rail tracks. If an object is detected, the sensors immediately send notification to personnel who may then stop the train and take appropriate action. LACMTA seeks a waiver for the PTIDS because it contains twelve components, six of which only are available from a single source and currently are not manufactured in the United States. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A), FTA published a notice of the waiver request and sought public comment in deciding whether to grant the request. Having received no comments opposing the waiver, FTA is hereby granting a non-availability waiver for this one procurement of the specific PTIDS components identified in this waiver request, and not to any future procurement by LACMTA or others.
This waiver is effective immediately.
Laura Goldin, FTA Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 366-2743 or
The purpose of this Notice is to announce that FTA is granting a non-availability waiver to LACMTA for the procurement of a PTIDS. On May 1, 2015, LACMTA requested a Buy America non-availability waiver for the PTIDS because several components are only available from a single source and are not produced in sufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory quality in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(A); 49 CFR 661.7(c).
LACMTA operates both heavy rail and light rail for 80 stations spanning 87 service miles. In December 2013, LACMTA entered into a partnership with Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) and ProTran Technology LLC to submit an application in response to FTA's Notice of Funding Availability Solicitation of Project Proposals for Innovative Safety, Resiliency, and All-Hazards Emergency Response and Recovery Research Demonstrations. The goal of LACMTA's proposal is to demonstrate that the PTIDS is the most reliable, efficient, and secure system available and can immediately identify any right-of-way obstacles. The PTIDS relies on radar transponder technology to send an instant warning to rail operation safety systems and personnel. If an intrusion is detected, the PTIDS sensors trigger safety systems and notify personnel, so that the train can be stopped. Due to the accuracy and immediacy of the technology, LACMTA claims that the PTIDS allows for the greatest response time so more accidents will be avoided.
According to LACMTA's request, six of the 12 components that comprise the PTIDS are foreign-made and require a non-availability waiver under 49 CFR 661.7. Those components requiring a waiver are: The AXIS fixed outdoor dome camera manufactured in Sweden; the AXIS wall mount for dome cameras manufactured in Sweden; the Honeywell Module Radar Sensor Modules Pair manufactured in Germany; the Honeywell GPC/CCU controller units manufactured in Germany; the Honeywell GPC Cabinet for equiptment manufactured in Germany and; the Honeywell Custom Cables for interconnection manufactured in Germany.
FTA also conducted a scouting search through its Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The scouting search identified three domestic manufacturers as potential matches for this opportunity: Extreme Endeavors in West Virginia, Innovative Solutions Through Technology in Kentucky, and BFW, Inc. in Kentucky. The manufacturers identified either produce similar products to the PTIDS sought, possess the capabilities to produce this PTIDS, have produced an item similar to the PTIDS in the past, or have expressed a business interest in producing the PTIDS. However, none of these U.S. manufacturers identified currently produce the exact PTIDS that LACMTA is seeking, as described in this Notice.
With certain exceptions, FTA's Buy America requirements prevent FTA from obligating an amount that may be appropriated to carry out its program for a project unless “the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1). A manufactured product is considered produced in the United States if: (1) All of the manufacturing processes for the product take place in the United States; and (2) all of the components of the product are of U.S. origin. A component is considered of U.S. origin if it is manufactured in the United States, regardless of the origin of its subcomponents. 49 CFR 661.5(d). If, however, FTA determines that “the steel, iron, and goods produced in the United States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality,” then FTA may issue a waiver (non-availability waiver). 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(B); 49 CFR 661.7(c).
LACMTA requested a Buy America non-availability waiver in order to conduct research on and test the PTIDS for future use. LACMTA also notes that Honeywell may consider domestic manufacturing of certain elements of the PTIDS if this research and testing is successful and if there is adequate industry demand.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A), FTA published a notice in the
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of Buy America waiver.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) received a request from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for a Buy America waiver for Voith Turbo Schneider Propeller GmbH (Voith) 21/R5 propulsion units based on non-availability. Voith, located in Germany, is the sole manufacturer of the required propulsion units. VDOT is procuring the propulsion units as part of an engine and drive system replacement for the Ferry Boat Pocahontas, which is operated by VDOT. There are no domestic manufacturers of equivalent propulsion units. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A), FTA published a notice of the waiver request and sought public comment in deciding whether to grant the request. Having received no comments opposing the waiver, FTA is hereby granting a non-availability waiver for this one procurement of the specific Voith Turbo Schneider Propeller GmbH identified in this waiver request, and not to any future procurement by VDOT or others.
This waiver is effective immediately.
Laura Ames, FTA Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 366-2743 or
The purpose of this Notice is to announce that FTA is granting a non-availability waiver to VODT for the purchase of two (2) Voith 21/R5 propulsion units based on non-availability. On August 12, 2015, VDOT requested a Buy America waiver for the procurement of the propulsion units. VDOT's request identified Voith, located in Germany, as the sole manufacturer of the required propulsion units. No known domestic equivalents exist. VDOT is procuring the propulsion units as part of an engine and drive system replacement for the Ferry Boat Pocahontas, which is operated by VDOT on the Jamestown-Scotland ferry route crossing the James River in Virginia.
The original propulsion units have reached the end of their useful life. Although the new ferry engines will be manufactured domestically by Caterpillar, Inc., the vessel has a specific propulsion design utilizing a vertical axis cycloidal propeller. The Pocahontas was designed around the vertical propeller configuration. The entirety of the vessel's hull, the engine housing, the dimensions of the vessel, and the ballast locations, are all configured to work with a vertical propulsion unit, which ensures proper piloting and vessel stability. As part of the procurement planning, VDOT contracted with Alion Science and Technology Corp. (Alion) to develop the design of the entire
With certain exceptions, FTA's Buy America requirements prevent FTA from obligating an amount that may be appropriated to carry out its program for a project unless “the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1). If, however, FTA determines that “the steel, iron, and goods produced in the United States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality,” then FTA may issue a non-availability waiver. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(B); 49 CFR 661.7(c).
FTA also conducted a scouting search through its Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The scouting search identified one domestic manufacturer as a potential match for this opportunity, Astro Manufacturing and Design in Ohio. This manufacturer produces a similar item to the Vertical Axis Cycloidal Propeller and possesses the capabilities to produce the propeller. However, the U.S. manufacturer identified does not currently produce the exact propeller that VDOT is seeking, as described in this Notice.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A), FTA published a notice in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that model year (MY) 2012 Fisker Karma passenger cars (PC) that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2012 Fisker Karma PC) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is January 11, 2016.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Wallace Environmental Testing Laboratories (WETL), Inc. of Houston, Texas (Registered Importer R-90-005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2012 Fisker Karma PC's are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which WETL believes are substantially similar are MY 2012 Fisker Karma PC's sold in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified MY 2012 Fisker Karma PC's to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
WETL submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 2012 Fisker Karma PC's, as originally manufactured, conform to many applicable FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S.-certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non U.S.-certified MY 2012 Fisker Karma PC's, as originally manufactured, conform to: Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S certified vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 209
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield pillar to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
CSXT has certified that: (1) No freight traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (3) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will become effective on January 9, 2016, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative: Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Because there will be an environmental review during an abandonment, this discontinuance does not require an environmental review.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
Decided: December 7, 2015
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of availability; Reopening of comment period.
On October 23, 2015, the Department published a notice of availability and request for comments regarding an application to Treasury to reduce benefits under the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan in accordance with the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA). The purpose of this notice is to reopen the comment period and provide more time for interested parties to provide comments.
Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
You may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Comments may also be mailed to the Department of the Treasury, MPRA Office, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 1224, Washington, DC 20220. Attn: Deva Kyle. Comments sent via facsimile and email will not be accepted.
Additional Instructions. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, will be made available to the public. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as Social Security number, name, address, or other contact information) or any other information in your comment or supporting materials that you do not want publicly disclosed. Treasury will make comments available for public inspection and copying on
For information regarding the application from the Board of Trustees of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan, please contact Treasury at (202) 622-1534 (not a toll-free number).
The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) amended the Internal Revenue Code to permit a multiemployer plan that is projected to have insufficient funds to reduce pension benefits payable to participants and beneficiaries if certain conditions are satisfied. In order to reduce benefits, the plan sponsor is required to submit an application to the Secretary of the Treasury, which the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the Secretary of Labor, is required to approve or deny.
On September 25, 2015, the Board of Trustees of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (Central States Pension Plan) submitted an application for approval to reduce benefits under the Central States Pension Plan. As required by the MPRA, that application has been published on Treasury's Web site at
This notice announces the reopening the comment period in order to give additional time for interested parties to provide comments. Comments are requested from interested parties, including contributing employers, employee organizations, and participants and beneficiaries of the Central States Pension Plan. Consideration will be given to any comments that are timely received by Treasury on or before February 1, 2016.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).
Notice.
VA OSDBU, is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 8, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Milagros Ortiz, (202) 462-4279-7492 or
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OMB invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OMB's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OMB's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, the Commission on Care gives amended notice that it will meet on Monday, December 14, 2015, Tuesday, December 15, 2015, and Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at the J.W. Marriott, Jr. ASAE Conference Center, 1575 I St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 2015. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2015. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 16. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Commission, as described in section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, is to examine the access of veterans to health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs and strategically examine how best to organize the Veterans Health Administration, locate health care resources, and deliver health care to veterans during the next 20 years.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. The public may submit written statements for the Commission's review to Bernadette Philpot or Mona Bellamy, Commission on Care, at
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. State Home Inspection Staffing Profile, VA Form 10-3567—69.5 hrs.
b. State Home Report and State of Federal Aid Claimed, VA Form 10-5588—834 hrs.
c. Claim for Payment for Nursing Home Care Provided to Veterans Awarded Retroactive Service Connection, VA Form 10-5588A—180 hrs.
d. State Home Program Application for Veteran Care—Medical Certification, VA Form 10-10SH—3,802 hrs.
e. Department of Veterans Affairs Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements for Grantees Other Than Individuals, VA Form 10- 0143—12 hrs.
f. Statement of Assurance of Compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, VA Form 10-1043a—12 hrs.
g. Certification Regarding Lobbying, VA Form 10-0144—12 hrs.
h. Statement of Assurance of Compliance with Equal Opportunity Laws, VA Form 10-0460—12 hrs.
i. Request for Prescription Drugs from an Eligible Veteran in a State Home, VA Form 10-0144a—12 hrs.
j. Application for Recognition (Letter to Under Secretary for Health)—2 hrs.
k. Recognition & Certification (Sections 51.30 and 52.30)—120 hrs.
l. Quality of Life (Sections 51.100 and 52.100)—350 hrs.
m. Section, Administration and (Section 51.210 and 52.210)—1,400 hrs.
Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:
By direction of the Secretary.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The NCUA Board proposes to comprehensively amend its chartering and field of membership rules to put them in a more efficient framework and to maximize access to federal credit union services to the extent permitted by law. The amendments will implement changes in policy affecting: The definition of a local community, a rural district, and an underserved area; the expansion of multiple common bond credit unions and members' proximity to them; the expansion of single common bond credit unions based on a trade, industry or profession; and the process for applying to charter or expand a federal credit union.
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• NCUA Web site:
• Email: Address to
• Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.
• Mail: Address to Gerard S. Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
Matthew Biliouris, Deputy Director, or Robert Leonard, Director, Division of Consumer Access, or Rita Woods, Director, Division of Consumer Access South, Office of Consumer Protection, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-1140; or Senior Staff Attorney Steven Widerman or Staff Attorney Marvin Shaw, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.
NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, incorporated as appendix B to part 701 of its regulations (“Chartering and FOM Manual”),
In adopting the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 (“CUMAA”), Congress reiterated its longstanding support for credit unions, noting their “specif[ic] mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means.”
Based on NCUA's experience in processing applications for initial approval and subsequent expansion of all three types of charters, the Board periodically updates and revises the Chartering and FOM Manual to ensure adherence to the statutory criteria, limitations and special rules that apply to each charter type, to reflect contemporary practice, and to enhance the user-friendliness of the Chartering and FOM Manual for the benefit of those seeking to charter an FCU, as well as for existing credit unions.
The proposed rule will modify the Board's policies affecting the definition of a local community, a rural district, and an underserved area; group members' proximity to multiple common bond FCUs when they expand; and expansion of single common bond FCUs that serve a trade, industry or profession; and the process for applying to charter or expand an FCU. Consistent with its responsibility under CUMAA to facilitate access to credit unions and their delivery of services, the Board is proposing these policy modifications in order to accomplish several objectives. The first is to ease any undue burdens and restrictions on an FCU's ability to provide services to consumers who are eligible for FCU membership, particularly those of modest means and those who may not currently be members of a credit union. The second is to enhance the menu of strategic options for FOM expansions. The third is to maximize competitive parity between federal and state charters, to the extent allowed by law, while respecting the national system of dual chartering. The Board invites public comments addressing all aspects of the proposed rule.
As amended in 1998, the FCU Act limits membership in a community credit union to “[p]ersons or organizations within a well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural district.”
Since 2010, the Board has provided credit unions the option of two uniform, nationally-recognized, objective geographic units that, by definition, meet the statutory criteria of a well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural district. The first is a “Single Political Jurisdiction . . . or any contiguous portion thereof,” regardless of population.
1.
2. “
3.
To target the 2.5 million population limit strictly to the community a credit union seeks to serve, the Board proposes to modify its “statistical area” definition to specify that “a Core Based Statistical Area, Metropolitan Division, or well-defined portion of either one, must itself have a population of 2.5 million or fewer people.” This will ensure that a portion of a Core Based Statistical Area, or a Metropolitan Division within, qualifies as a well-defined local community when it meets the population limit solely as applied to that portion, even if the Core Based Statistical Area as a whole exceeds the limit.
4. “
OMB's approach in designating Combined Statistical Areas is consistent with that of the Board in relying on residents' interactions and common interests to define a local community. Accordingly, the Board proposes to expand the existing single Core Based Statistical Area definition of a well-defined local community to include Combined Statistical Areas as designated by OMB, subject to the 2.5 million population limit. Additionally, in evaluating expansion requests, NCUA will continue its practice of reviewing each FCU's business and marketing plans to determine its capability and success in serving its original and previously expanded community.
5.
The expanded community would be subject to the proposed population limits for community charters (2.5 million) and rural district charters (1 million).
The Board recognizes that credit unions seeking to add bordering areas to their existing community or rural district charters historically have already established a proven track record of serving an existing community or rural district and should not be subject to the same requirements as those for a credit union seeking to convert to a community or rural district charter. Therefore, the Board proposes to require a federal credit union seeking to add a bordering area to follow a streamlined set of business plan requirements contained in this rule. The Board seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed set of streamlined requirements, and if any specific items should be added or removed from the proposed criteria. The Board also seeks comment on the existing comprehensive business and marketing plan requirements. Finally, the Board is considering whether to limit the availability of this streamlined approach to a federal credit union seeking a certain maximum percentage increase in its field of membership, and is interested in receiving public comment on this aspect of the proposal.
6.
in general, a large population in a small geographic area or a small population in a large geographic area, may meet community chartering requirements. Conversely, . . . a large population in a large geographic area will not normally meet community chartering requirements. In so doing, however, the Board has not summarily dismissed or prejudged any potential application. While an area with a large population may require additional documentation, it still may meet the definition of a local community.
A significant change in circumstances has prompted the Board to reconsider this policy as it applies to Congressional districts—namely that, NCUA has, since 1999, approved 21 Single Political Jurisdictions that each have a population in excess of 1 million, while the average population of the United States' 435 Congressional districts is 710,767.
The most populous of the 435 districts is the “at large” district serving the state of Montana, with a population of 1,023,579; Rhode Island has the smallest average district size at 523,028.
Among residents of Single Political Jurisdictions comprised of towns, cities and counties, the focal point of common interests and interaction tends be local services, resources and facilities (
Based on this rationale, the Board proposes to recognize each individual Congressional district as a Single Political Jurisdiction, thus qualifying it as a well-defined local community without regard to population.
As in the case of any community charter application, a credit union that applies to serve a Congressional district must submit a business and marketing plan demonstrating its ability and commitment to serve the entire community. The larger the Congressional district, the more challenging and burdensome it may be for an applicant to satisfy this requirement.
If, as a result of redistricting, the boundaries of an individual Congressional district were to be redrawn, the FOM consisting of the original Congressional district would no longer be available to be served by any other FCU. Only an FCU that was approved to serve an FOM comprised of an individual Congressional district would be grandfathered to continue serving that area.
The Board has, since 2013, imposed two requirements for a proposed area to qualify as a well-defined “Rural District.” The first is that the area's total population cannot exceed the
1.
2.
As revised, the Rural District definition—a 1 million population limit, and either a sparse population density or “rural” designation—would continue to permit a Rural District to extend beyond a single state's boundaries. To prevent the overexpansion of Rural Districts, however, the Board proposes to prohibit a single well-defined Rural District from exceeding the boundaries of the states that are
The FCU Act authorizes the NCUA Board to allow multiple common bond credit unions to serve members residing in an “underserved area,” provided the FCU establishes and maintains a facility in the area.
1.
The first component is NCUA data reflecting the presence of
It would be impracticable and an inefficient use of resources for NCUA to segregate bank and credit union data on a nationwide scale to exclude non-depository bank and non-community credit union data. However, in the event an initial concentration of facilities ratio calculation fails to identify a proposed area as underserved by other depository institutions, the proposed rule would require NCUA to then exclude the non-depository bank and non-community credit union data and recalculate the ratio. This will ensure the integrity of the result, as well as maximize the identification of areas that would benefit from the introduction of credit union service to compensate for the lack of service by other depository institutions. This approach also will conserve NCUA resources that otherwise would be consumed in routinely excluding this data without regard to whether an initial concentration of facilities ratio calculation without those exclusions would yield a positive result.
2.
The Board invites commenters to identify other methodologies and Federal banking agency data that would be useful in identifying areas “underserved by other depository institutions” in an objective manner. Examples include data from Community Reinvestment Act examination reports prepared by the FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“the Fed”),
As amended in 1998, the FCU Act restored the Board's multiple common bond policy, permitting a multiple common bond credit union to serve a combination of distinct, definable occupational and/or associational groups, each having its own common bond among group members.
1.
When formation of a stand-alone single common bond credit union either is not practicable, or would be inconsistent with reasonable standards of safety and soundness, the FCU Act requires “inclusion of the group in the [FOM] of a credit union that is within
In 1998, the Board acknowledged that “reasonable proximity” is an essential factor in determining whether a select group can be added to a multiple common bond credit union.
To recognize the role of advancing technologies in enabling reasonable proximity between a credit union and the groups it serves, the Board proposes to revise the definition of a “service facility” to extend it to members of occupational select groups, and members of pre-approved associational groups,
To support its proposal to incorporate online financial services in the definition of “service facility” through online internet channels via access to laptop computers, personal computers and mobile devices, the Board has reviewed data from FCUs regarding consumer needs and preferences. By all measures, the use of online financial services has increased dramatically in the past 15 years. Federally insured credit unions' Call Report data indicates that the proportion of members using transactional Web sites has steadily increased from 27 percent of members in the fourth quarter of 2006 (23.2 million) to 45 percent in the second quarter of 2015 (40.5 million)—an increase of 17.3 million users.
Among FCUs, only 22 percent offered home banking via an internet Web site in 2000. This share increased to 68 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 (4,846 out of 7,094), and 75 percent by the second quarter of 2015 (4,612 out of 6,159). There has been similarly significant growth in the use of smart phones and tablets to conduct mobile banking transactions. With such technology non-existent as late as 2008, only 6 percent of FCUs offered mobile banking in 2009. This share increased to 16 percent in 2011, and 47 percent by the second quarter of 2015.
Similarly, data collected by the Boston Consulting Group (“BCG”) indicates actual consumer use of online delivery channels has increased significantly.
The dramatic increase in FCUs offering mobile banking service is consistent with the use of internet and mobile banking services by consumers generally. An annual study sponsored by the American Bankers Association, and conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs for 2015, surveyed 1,000 adults about their banking preferences among the following choices: Internet banking (laptop or personal computer), mobile devices (cell phone, Blackberry, PDA, tablet), brick and mortar branches, ATMs, telephone, and mail. A primary question was, “Which method do you use most often to manage your bank accounts?” The table below indicates that 41 percent of customers preferred internet or mobile banking. In contrast, only 21 percent preferred branch banking. These preferences were similar in 2013 and in 2014. The study sponsor further stated that “This is the sixth year in a row [2008-2014] that customers named the Internet as their favorite way of conducting their banking business.”
Similarly, government-sponsored studies indicate dramatic increases in online banking in the past few years. Since 2011, the Fed has conducted an annual survey that focuses on one channel of online banking: Smart phone technology for mobile banking.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta studied the use of mobile banking by banks and credit unions to determine the level of and type of mobile financial services offered by financial institutions.
The strong consumer preference for online financial services, as well as for integration of online banking into financial institutions' overall business and marketing plans indicates the need to amend the Chartering and FOM Manual to facilitate current credit union members' access to such online services. Accordingly, to put multiple common bond credit unions and members of the groups they serve within reasonable proximity of each other, as required by law, as well as to put them in parity with their depository institution competitors, the Board is proposing to amend the definition of “service facility” to include online financial services, including computer-based and mobile phone channels meeting certain criteria for access.
In addition to the proposal to include a transactional Web site in the definition of “service facility,” the Board is considering modifying the definition of “service area” to include one or more discreet political jurisdictions such as a county or city. While the Board historically has discouraged using mileage and distance factors exclusively to define reasonable proximity,
2.
3.
The option of including a tenants' SEG within a multiple common bond would allow those FCUs to more efficiently offer services to employees of small businesses, avoiding an extensive outlay of resources to obtain letters from each group requesting credit union service. Instead, a multiple common bond credit union could serve employees of an office/industrial park's tenants by obtaining a letter from an authorized representative of the park itself, such as its leasing agent.
4.
Groups of fewer than 3,000 members will be subject to the existing application process, consisting of the following: A written request using the Application for Field of Membership (NCUA 4015 EZ), a letter from the group requesting credit union service and indicating the desire to be added to the FCU's field of membership; the number of persons included in the group to be added; and the group's proximity to the credit union's nearest service facility. Applicants do not need to support these groups' lack of ability to form their own credit union.
Since the statute presumes a group of 3,000 or more members can form a credit union, there is a higher burden of proof to establish that such a group cannot form its own credit union. When a group has between 3,000 and 5,000 members and displays evidence of a lack of available subsidies, disinterest among the group's members, and an overall lack of sufficient resources, the Board has historically determined that the group could not feasibly or reasonably establish a new single common bond credit union. In such cases the Board will accept a written statement indicating these conditions exist as sufficient documentation the group cannot form its own credit union. Consistent with current policy on incidental overlaps, the Board will no longer require an overlap analysis of a group between 3,000 and 5,000 members, given that groups in this size range rarely have been able to form a stand-alone credit union. Groups with more than 5,000 members will be subject to the existing standard application process, requiring a group to fully describe its inability to establish a new single common bond credit union.
However, the Board is particularly interested in comments on whether to consider a larger number than 5,000 for this threshold. While 80 percent of failures occurred in credit unions with fewer than 5,000
For example, if the average penetration rate of actual members to potential members at the smallest multiple-group credit unions is 50 percent, a group of 10,000 potential members may be needed to reach 5,000 actual members. The Board welcomes comments on how many actual members are needed to charter a viable new credit union, and how many potential members would be needed in order to reach that minimum number of actual members.
There are three benefits to the proposed three-tiered process for assessing a group's stand-alone feasibility. First, it conforms to the stand-alone feasibility criteria the FCU Act prescribes for groups in excess of 3,000, and the approval criteria it prescribes for the addition of a group, regardless of its size, to an existing multiple common bond credit union.
NCUA has historically recognized a variety of persons who, by virtue of their relationship to a common bond group, have been entitled to credit union membership eligibility. Principal among these persons are members of the immediate family or household of a primary member of a credit union members (
Active duty and discharged military personnel and their families share a similar affinity, typically maintaining a close relationship with their active duty branch of service, largely through Armed Forces associations, publications and continued access to military bases, such as Veterans Administration facilities, base commissaries, post exchanges, and morale, welfare and recreation sponsored programs. To honor the contributions of those serving in the United States Armed Forces, and to give them the benefit of access to credit union service throughout their lives following active duty, the Board proposes to include within a credit union's common bond the honorably discharged veterans of any branch of the United States Armed Forces listed in its charter, continuing their eligibility for credit union membership beyond active duty.
A TIP is a single occupational common bond based on employment at any number of corporations or other legal entities that, while not under common ownership, still have a common bond by reason of producing similar products, providing similar services, sharing the same profession or trade, or participating in the same industry.
Apart from introducing substantive revisions to NCUA's FOM rules and policies, the proposed rule will update the Chartering and FOM Manual to enhance its accuracy and user-friendliness for the benefit of those seeking to charter a credit union, as well as for existing credit unions. To that end, the proposed rule substitutes certain references to regional office and regional director chartering responsibilities with references to the Office of Consumer Protection as the primary office for chartering matters within NCUA and, to address previous comments, substitutes the Board Secretary for the Office of Consumer Protection in reference to appeals of chartering decisions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to collections of information through which an agency creates a paperwork burden on regulated entities or the public, or modifies an existing burden.
The proposed rule creates new strategic options for FCUs, while requiring essentially the same information that the existing rule required to apply for and be granted a charter expansion or conversion, with two exceptions. It introduces a new form within an appendix to the
Regarding a community common bond, the proposed rule permits an FCU to add an area adjacent to the perimeter of its existing community consisting of a Single Political Jurisdiction, Core Based Statistical Area, Combined Statistical Area or rural district, upon a showing by subjective evidence that residents on both sides of the perimeter interact or share common interests. For that purpose, the rule provides guidance in identifying compelling indicia of interaction or common interests that would be relevant in drafting a narrative summarizing the indicia that demonstrate that the residents of the expanded community meet the requirements of a well-defined local community.
NCUA has determined that the procedure for an FCU to assemble such subjective evidence of interaction or common interests, and to draft and submit a narrative summarizing the evidence to support its application to expand, would create a new information collection requirement. As required, NCUA is applying to OMB for approval to amend the current information collection to account for the new procedure.
Approximately 1,090 FCUs have a community charter. While there is no reasonable way to measure how many FCUs will use this particular option, it would be available to any community FCU, regardless of asset size. NCUA estimates that, on average, it would take an FCU's staff approximately 24 hours to collect the evidence of interaction and common interests and to draft a narrative to support its application to expand. Accordingly, NCUA estimates the aggregate information collection burden on FCUs that seek to add an area adjacent to the perimeter of an existing community consisting of a Single Political Jurisdiction, Core Based Statistical Area, Combined Statistical Area or rural district would be 24 hours times 1,090 FCUs for a total of 26,160 hours. NCUA is proposing to amend the current information collection control number 3133-0015 to account for these additional burden hours.
Organizations and individuals wishing to submit comments on this information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Shagufta Ahmed, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
NCUA will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in:
• Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of NCUA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. Primarily because this rule applies to FCUs exclusively, it will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701, appendix B, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601
The National Credit Union Administration's (NCUA) chartering and field of membership policies are directed toward achieving the following goals:
• To encourage the formation of credit unions;
• To uphold the provisions of the Federal Credit Union Act;
• To promote thrift and credit extension;
• To promote credit union safety and soundness; and
• To make quality credit union service available to all eligible persons.
NCUA may grant a charter to single occupational/associational groups, multiple groups, or communities if:
• The occupational, associational, or multiple groups possess an appropriate common bond or the community represents a well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district;
• The subscribers are of good character and are fit to represent the proposed credit union; and
• The establishment of the credit union is economically advisable.
Generally, these are the primary criteria that NCUA will consider. In unusual circumstances, however, NCUA may examine other factors, such as other federal law or public policy, in deciding if a charter should be approved. Unless otherwise noted, the policies outlined in this manual apply only to federal credit unions.
The Federal Credit Union Act recognizes three types of federal credit union charters—single common bond (occupational and associational), multiple common bond (more than one group each having a common bond of occupation or association), and community.
The requirements that must be met to charter a federal credit union are described in Chapter 2 of this manual. Special rules for credit unions serving low-income groups are described in Chapter 3 of this manual.
If a federal credit union charter is granted, Section 5 of the charter will describe the credit union's field of membership, which defines those persons and entities eligible for membership. Generally, federal credit unions are only able to grant loans and provide services to persons within the field of membership who have become members of the credit union.
Federal credit unions are generally organized by persons who volunteer their time and resources and are responsible for determining the interest, commitment, and economic advisability of forming a federal credit union. The organization of a successful federal credit union takes considerable planning and dedication.
Persons interested in organizing a federal credit union should contact one of the credit union trade associations or the NCUA regional office serving the state in which the credit union will be organized. Lists of NCUA offices and credit union trade associations are shown in the appendices. NCUA will provide information to groups interested in pursuing a federal charter and will assist them in contacting an organizer.
While anyone may organize a credit union, a person with training and experience in chartering new federal credit unions is generally the most effective organizer. However, extensive involvement by the group desiring credit union service is essential.
The functions of the organizer are to provide direction, guidance, and advice on the chartering process. The organizer also provides the group with information about a credit union's functions and purpose as well as technical assistance in preparing and submitting the charter application. Close communication and cooperation between the organizer and the proposed members are critical to the chartering process.
The Federal Credit Union Act requires that seven or more natural persons—the “subscribers”—present to NCUA for approval a sworn organization certificate stating at a minimum:
• The name of the proposed federal credit union;
• The location of the proposed federal credit union and the territory in which it will operate;
• The names and addresses of the subscribers to the certificate and the number of shares subscribed by each;
• The initial par value of the shares;
• The detailed proposed field of membership; and
• The fact that the certificate is made to enable such persons to avail themselves of the advantages of the Federal Credit Union Act.
False statements on any of the required documentation filed in obtaining a federal credit union charter may be grounds for federal criminal prosecution.
Before chartering a federal credit union, NCUA must be satisfied that the institution will be viable and that it will provide needed services to its members. Economic advisability, which is a determination that a potential charter will have a reasonable opportunity to succeed, is essential in order to qualify for a credit union charter.
NCUA will conduct an independent on-site investigation of each charter application to ensure that the proposed credit union can be successful. In general, the success of any credit union depends on: (a) The character and fitness of management; (b) the depth of the members' support; and (c) present and projected market conditions.
The Federal Credit Union Act requires NCUA to ensure that the subscribers are of good “general character and fitness.” Prospective officials and employees will be the subject of credit and background investigations. The investigation report must demonstrate each applicant's ability to effectively handle financial matters. Employees and officials should also be competent, experienced, honest and of good character. Factors that may lead to disapproval of a prospective official or employee include criminal convictions, indictments, and acts of fraud and dishonesty. Further, factors such as serious or unresolved past due credit obligations and bankruptcies disclosed during credit checks may disqualify an individual.
NCUA also needs reasonable assurance that the management team will have the requisite skills—particularly in leadership and accounting—and the commitment to dedicate the time and effort needed to make the proposed federal credit union a success.
Section 701.14 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations sets forth the procedures for NCUA approval of officials of newly chartered credit unions. If the application of a prospective official or employee to serve is not acceptable to the Office of Consumer Protection Director, the group can propose an alternate to act in that individual's place. If the charter applicant feels it is essential that the disqualified individual be retained, the individual may appeal the Office of Consumer Protection Director's decision to the NCUA Board. If an appeal is pursued, action on the application may be delayed. If the appeal is denied by the NCUA Board, an acceptable new applicant must be provided before the charter can be approved.
Economic advisability is a major factor in determining whether the credit union will be chartered. An important consideration is the degree of support from the field of membership. The charter applicant must be able to demonstrate that membership support is sufficient to ensure viability.
NCUA has not set a minimum field of membership size for chartering a federal credit union. Consequently, groups of any size may apply for a credit union charter and be approved if they demonstrate economic advisability. However, it is important to note that often the size of the group is indicative of the potential for success. For that reason, a charter application with fewer than 3,000 primary potential members (
The ability to provide effective service to members, compete in the marketplace, and to adapt to changing market conditions are key to the survival of any enterprise. Before NCUA will charter a credit union, a business plan based on realistic and supportable projections and assumptions must be submitted.
The business plan should contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
• Mission statement;
• Analysis of market conditions, including if applicable, geographic, demographic, employment, income, housing, and other economic data;
• Evidence of member support;
• Goals for shares, loans, and for number of members;
• Financial services needed/desired;
• Financial services to be provided to members of all segments within the field of membership;
• How/when services are to be implemented;
• Organizational/management plan addressing qualification and planned training of officials/employees;
• Continuity plan for directors, committee members and management staff;
• Operating facilities, to include office space/equipment and supplies, safeguarding of assets, insurance coverage, etc.;
• Type of record-keeping and data processing system;
• Detailed semiannual pro forma financial statements (balance sheet, income and expense projections) for 1st and 2nd year, including assumptions—
• Plans for operating independently;
• Written policies (shares, lending, investments, funds management, capital accumulation, dividends, collections, etc.);
• Source of funds to pay expenses during initial months of operation, including any subsidies, assistance, etc., and terms or conditions of such resources; and
• Evidence of sponsor commitment (or other source of support) if subsidies are critical to success of the federal credit union. Evidence may be in the form of letters, contracts, financial statements from the sponsor, and any other such document on which the proposed federal credit union can substantiate its projections.
While the business plan may be prepared with outside assistance, the subscribers and
Following the guidance contained throughout this policy, the organizers should submit wording for the proposed field of membership (the persons, organizations and other legal entities the credit union will serve) to NCUA early in the application process for written preliminary approval. The proposed field of membership must meet all common bond or community requirements.
Once the field of membership has been given preliminary approval, and the organizer is satisfied the application has merit, the organizer should conduct an organizational meeting to elect seven to ten persons to serve as subscribers. The subscribers should locate willing individuals capable of serving on the board of directors, credit committee, supervisory committee, and as chief operating officer/manager of the proposed credit union.
Subsequent organizational meetings may be held to discuss the progress of the charter investigation, to announce the proposed slate of officials, and to respond to any questions posed at these meetings.
If NCUA approves the charter application, the subscribers, as their final duty, will elect the board of directors of the proposed federal credit union. The new board of directors will then appoint the supervisory committee.
As discussed previously in this chapter, the organizer of a federal credit union charter must, at a minimum, provide evidence that:
• The group(s) possess an appropriate common bond or the geographical area to be served is a well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district;
• The subscribers, prospective officials, and employees are of good character and fitness; and
• The establishment of the credit union is economically advisable.
As part of the application process, the organizer must submit the following forms, which are available in appendix 4 of this manual:
• Federal Credit Union Investigation Report, NCUA 4001;
• Organization Certificate, NCUA 4008;
• Report of Official and Agreement To Serve, NCUA 4012;
• Application and Agreements for Insurance of Accounts, NCUA 9500; and
• Certification of Resolutions, NCUA 9501.
Each of these forms is described in more detail in the following sections.
The application for a new federal credit union will be submitted on NCUA 4001. State-chartered credit unions applying for conversion to a federal charter will use NCUA 4000. (See Chapter 4 for a full discussion.) The organizer is required to certify the information and recommend approval or disapproval, based on the investigation of the request.
This document, which must be completed by the subscribers, includes the seven criteria established by the Federal Credit Union Act. NCUA staff assigned to the case will assist in the proper completion of this document.
This form documents general background information of each official and employee of the proposed federal credit union. Each official and employee must complete and sign this form. The organizer must review each of the NCUA 4012s for elements that would prevent the prospective official or employee from serving. Further, such factors as serious, unresolved past due credit obligations and bankruptcies disclosed during credit checks may disqualify an individual.
This document contains the agreements with which federal credit unions must comply in order to obtain National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) coverage of member accounts. The document must be completed and signed by both the chief executive officer and chief financial officer. A federal credit union must qualify for federal share insurance.
This document certifies that the board of directors of the proposed federal credit union has resolved to apply for NCUSIF insurance of member accounts and has authorized the chief executive officer and recording officer to execute the Application and Agreements for Insurance of Accounts. Both the chief executive officer and recording officer of the proposed federal credit union must sign this form.
It is the responsibility of the federal credit union organizers or officials of an existing credit union to ensure that the proposed federal credit union name or federal credit union name change does not constitute an infringement on the name of any corporation in its trade area. This responsibility also includes researching any service marks or trademarks used by any other corporation (including credit unions) in its trade area. NCUA will ensure, to the extent possible, that the credit union's name:
• Is not already being officially used by another federal credit union;
• Will not be confused with NCUA or another federal or state agency, or with another credit union; and
• Does not include misleading or inappropriate language.
The last three words in the name of every credit union chartered by NCUA must be “Federal Credit Union.”
The word “community,” while not required, can only be included in the name of federal credit unions that have been granted a community charter.
Once NCUA receives a complete charter application package, an acknowledgment of receipt will be sent to the organizer. At some point during the review process, a staff member will be assigned to perform an on-site contact with the proposed officials and others having an interest in the proposed federal credit union.
NCUA staff will review the application package and verify its accuracy and reasonableness. A staff member will inquire into the financial management experience and the suitability and commitment of the proposed officials and employees, and will make an assessment of economic advisability. The staff member will also provide guidance to the subscribers in the proper completion of the Organization Certificate, NCUA 4008.
Credit and background investigations may be conducted concurrently by NCUA with other work being performed by the organizer and subscribers to reduce the likelihood of delays in the chartering process.
The staff member will analyze the prospective credit union's business plan for realistic projections, attainable goals, adequate service to all segments of the field of membership, sufficient start-up capital, and time commitment by the proposed officials and employees. Any concerns will be reviewed with the organizer and discussed with the prospective credit union's officials. Additional on-site contacts by NCUA staff may be necessary. The organizer and subscribers will be expected to take the steps necessary to resolve any issues or concerns. Such resolution efforts may delay processing the application.
NCUA staff will then make a recommendation to the Office of Consumer Protection Director regarding the charter application. The recommendation may include specific provisions to be included in a Letter of Understanding and Agreement. In most cases, NCUA will require the prospective officials to adhere to certain operational guidelines. Generally, the agreement is for a limited term of two to four years. A sample Letter of Understanding and Agreement is found in appendix 2 of this manual.
Once approved, the board of directors of the newly formed federal credit union will receive a signed charter and standard bylaws from the Office of Consumer Protection Director. Additionally, the officials will be advised of the name of the examiner assigned responsibility for supervising and examining the credit union.
When the Office of Consumer Protection Director disapproves any charter application, in whole or in part, the organizer will be informed in writing of the specific reasons for the disapproval. Where applicable, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will provide information concerning options or suggestions that the applicant could consider
If the Office of Consumer Protection Director denies a charter application, in whole or in part, that decision may be appealed to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial and must address the specific reasons for denial. The appeal must be clearly identified as such and address the specific reason(s) the prospective group disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal with a recommendation to the NCUA Board.
Before appealing, the prospective group may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the Office of Consumer Protection Director for reconsideration. A reconsideration will contain new and material evidence addressing the reasons for the initial denial. The Office of Consumer Protection Director will have 30 days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the request is again denied, the applicant may proceed with the appeal process within 60 days of the date of the last denial. A second request for reconsideration will be treated as an appeal to the NCUA Board.
Assistance in commencing operations is generally available through the various credit union trade organizations listed in appendix 5 of this manual.
All new federal credit unions are also encouraged to establish a mentor relationship with a knowledgeable, experienced credit union individual or an existing, well-operated credit union. The mentor should provide guidance and assistance to the new credit union through attendance at meetings and general oversight. Upon request, NCUA will provide assistance in finding a qualified mentor.
Each federal credit union will be examined regularly by NCUA to determine that it remains in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and to determine that it does not pose undue risk to the NCUSIF. The examiner will contact the credit union officials shortly after approval of the charter in order to arrange for the initial examination (usually within the first six months of operation).
The examiner will be responsible for monitoring the progress of the credit union and providing the necessary advice and guidance to ensure it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The examiner will also monitor compliance with the terms of any required Letter of Understanding and Agreement. Typically, the examiner will require the credit union to submit copies of monthly board minutes and financial statements.
The Federal Credit Union Act requires all newly chartered credit unions, up to two years after the charter anniversary date, to obtain NCUA approval prior to appointment of any new board member, credit or supervisory committee member, or senior executive officer. Section 701.14 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations sets forth the notice and application requirements. If NCUA issues a Notice of Disapproval, the newly chartered credit union is prohibited from making the change.
NCUA may disapprove an individual serving as a director, committee member or senior executive officer if it finds that the competence, experience, character, or integrity of the individual indicates it would not be in the best interests of the members of the credit union or of the public to permit the individual to be employed by or associated with the credit union. If a Notice of Disapproval is issued, the credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board.
A corporate federal credit union is one that is operated primarily for the purpose of serving other credit unions. Corporate federal credit unions operate under and are administered by the NCUA Office of National Examinations and Supervision.
NCUA will attempt to assist any group in chartering a credit union or joining an existing credit union. If the group is not eligible for federal credit union service, NCUA will refer the group to the appropriate state supervisory authority where different requirements may apply.
NCUA will designate a credit union based on the following criteria:
Single Occupational: If a credit union serves a single occupational sponsor, such as ABC Corporation, it will be designated as an occupational credit union. A single occupational common bond credit union may also serve a trade, industry, or profession (TIP), such as all teachers.
Single Associational: If a credit union serves a single associational sponsor, such as the Knights of Columbus, it will be designated as an associational credit union.
Multiple Common Bond: If a credit union serves more than one group, each of which has a common bond of occupation and/or association, it will be designated as a multiple common bond credit union.
Community: All community credit unions will be designated as such, followed by a description of their geographic boundaries, including but not limited to city or county boundaries, roadways, rivers, transportation lines.
Credit unions desiring to confirm or submit an application to change their designations should contact the Office of Consumer Protection.
Federal credit unions are permitted to serve foreign nationals within their fields of membership wherever they reside provided they have the ability, resources, and management expertise to serve such persons. Before a credit union opens a branch outside the United States, it must submit an application to do so and have prior written approval of the regional director. A federal credit union may establish a service facility on a United States military installation or United States embassy without prior NCUA approval.
As set forth in Chapter 1, the Federal Credit Union Act provides for three types of federal credit union charters—single common bond (occupational or associational), multiple common bond (multiple groups), and community. Section 109 (12 U.S.C. 1759) of the Federal Credit Union Act sets forth the membership criteria for each of these three types of credit unions.
The field of membership, which is specified in Section 5 of the charter, defines those persons and entities eligible for membership. A single common bond federal credit union consists of one group having a common bond of occupation or association. A multiple common bond federal credit union consists of more than one group, each of which has a common bond of occupation or association. A community federal credit union consists of persons or organizations within a well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district.
Once chartered, a federal credit union can amend its field of membership; however, the same common bond or community requirements for chartering the credit union must be satisfied. Since there are differences in the three types of charters, special rules, which are fully discussed in the following sections of this chapter, may apply to each.
Generally, federal credit unions can only grant loans and provide services to persons who have joined the credit union. The Federal Credit Union Act states that one of the purposes of federal credit unions is “to serve the productive and provident credit needs of individuals of modest means.” Although field of membership requirements are applicable, special rules set forth in Chapter 3 of this manual may apply to low-income designated credit unions and those credit unions assisting low-income groups or to a federal credit union that adds an underserved community to its field of membership.
A single occupational common bond federal credit union may include in its field of membership all persons and entities who share that common bond. NCUA permits a person's membership eligibility in a single occupational common bond group to be established in five ways:
• Employment (or a long-term contractual relationship equivalent to employment) in a single corporation or other legal entity makes that person part of a single occupational common bond;
• Employment in a corporation or other legal entity with a controlling ownership interest (which shall not be less than 10 percent) in or by another legal entity makes that person part of a single occupational common bond;
• Employment in a corporation or other legal entity which is related to another legal entity (such as a company under contract and possessing a strong dependency relationship with another company) makes that person part of a single occupational common bond;
• Employment or attendance at a school makes that person part of a single occupational common bond (see Chapter 2, Section III.A.1 of this manual); or
• Employment in the same Trade, Industry, or Profession (TIP) (see Chapter 2, Section II.A.2 of this manual).
A geographic limitation is not a requirement for a single occupational common bond. However, for purposes of describing the field of membership, the geographic areas being served may be included in the charter. For example:
• Employees, officials, and persons who work regularly under contract in Miami, Florida for ABC Corporation and subsidiaries;
• Employees of ABC Corporation who are paid from * * *;
• Employees of ABC Corporation who are supervised from * * *;
• Employees of ABC Corporation who are headquartered in * * *; and/or
• Employees of ABC Corporation who work in the United States.
The corporation or other legal entity (
A charter applicant must provide documentation to establish that the single occupational common bond requirement has been met.
Some examples of valid single occupational common bonds are:
• Employees of the Hunt Manufacturing Company who work in West Chester, Pennsylvania. (common bond—same employer with geographic definition);
• Employees of the Buffalo Manufacturing Company who work in the United States. (common bond—same employer with geographic definition);
• Employees, elected and appointed officials of municipal government in Parma, Ohio. (common bond—same employer with geographic definition);
• Employees of Johnson Soap Company and its majority owned subsidiary, Johnson Toothpaste Company, who work in, are paid from, are supervised from, or are headquartered in Augusta and Portland, Maine. (common bond—parent and subsidiary company with geographic definition);
• Employees of MMLLJS contractor who work regularly at the U.S. Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. (common bond—employees of contractors with geographic definition);
• Employees, doctors, medical staff, technicians, medical and nursing students who work in or are paid from the Newport Beach Medical Center, Newport Beach, California. (single corporation with geographic definition);
• Employees of JLS, Incorporated and MJM, Incorporated working for the LKM Joint Venture Company in Catalina Island, California. (common bond—same employer—ongoing dependent relationship);
• Employees of and students attending Georgetown University. (common bond—same occupation);
• Employees of all the schools supervised by the Timbrook Board of Education in Timbrook, Georgia. (common bond—same employer); or
• All licensed nurses in Fairfax County, Virginia. (occupational common bond TIP).
In contrast, some examples of insufficiently defined single occupational common bonds are:
• Employees of manufacturing firms in Seattle, Washington. (no defined occupational sponsor; overly broad TIP);
• Persons employed or working in Chicago, Illinois. (no occupational common bond).
A common bond based on employment in a trade, industry, or profession can include employment at any number of corporations or other legal entities that—while not under common ownership—have a common bond by virtue of producing similar products, providing similar services, or participating in the same type of business.
While proposed or existing single common bond credit unions have some latitude in defining a trade, industry, or profession occupational common bond, it cannot be defined so broadly as to include groups in fields which are not closely related. For example, the manufacturing industry, energy industry, communications industry, retail industry, or entertainment industry would not qualify as a TIP because each industry lacks the necessary commonality. However, textile workers, realtors, nurses, teachers, police officers, or U.S. military personnel are closely related and each would qualify as a TIP.
The common bond relationship must be one that demonstrates a narrow commonality of interests within a specific trade, industry, or profession. If a credit union wants to serve a physician TIP, it can serve all physicians, but that does not mean it can also serve all clerical staff in the physicians' offices. However, if the TIP is based on the health care industry, then clerical staff would be able to be served by the credit union because they work in the same industry and have the same commonality of interests.
If a credit union wants to include the airline services industry, it can serve airline and airport personnel but not passengers. Clients or customers of the TIP are not eligible for credit union membership (
Although a TIP must be narrowly defined, and cannot include third-party vendors and other suppliers, it may include, on a case by case basis with NCUA approval, employees of types of entities that have a strong dependency relationship and work directly with other types of entities within the industry. As one example, an FCU may serve employees of companies within the Airline Transportation Industry that have a strong dependency relationship with airlines or airports, without the limitation that these employees work at an airport. This is provided they work directly with the following: Air transportation of freight, air courier services; air passenger services; airport baggage handling; airport security; commercial airport janitorial services; maintenance, servicing, and repair services; and on board airline food services. The employees of those entities have a narrow commonality of interests, share the single occupational common bond, and can be included within the Air Transportation Industry field of membership.
In general, except for credit unions serving a national field of membership or operating in multiple states, a geographic limitation is required for a TIP credit union. The geographic limitation will be part of the credit union's charter and generally correspond to its current or planned operational area. More than one federal credit union may serve the same trade, industry, or profession, even if both credit unions are in the same geographic location.
This type of occupational common bond is only available to single common bond credit unions. A TIP cannot be added to a multiple common bond or community field of membership.
To obtain a TIP designation, the proposed or existing credit union must submit a request to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. New charter applicants must follow the documentation requirements in Chapter 1 of this manual. New charter applicants and existing credit unions must submit a business plan on how the credit union will serve the group with the request to serve the TIP. The business plan also must address how the credit union will verify the TIP. Examples of such verification include state licenses, professional licenses, organizational memberships, pay statements, union membership, or employer certification. The Office of Consumer Protection Director must approve this type of field of membership before a credit union can serve a TIP. Credit unions converting to a TIP can retain members of record but cannot add new members from its previous group or groups, unless it is part of the TIP.
Section II.B of this manual, on Occupational Common Bond Amendments, does not apply to a TIP common bond. Removing or changing a geographical limitation will be processed as a housekeeping amendment. If safety and soundness concerns are present, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may require additional information before the request can be processed.
Section II.H, on Other Persons Eligible for Credit Union Membership, applies to TIP based credit unions except for the corporate
If a TIP designated credit union wishes to convert to a different TIP or employer-based occupational common bond, or different charter type, it only retains members of record after the conversion. The Office of Consumer Protection Director, for safety and soundness reasons, may approve a TIP designated credit union to convert to its original field of membership.
Section 5 of every single occupational federal credit union's charter defines the field of membership the credit union can legally serve. Only those persons or legal entities specified in the field of membership can be served. There are a number of instances in which Section 5 must be amended by NCUA.
First, a group sharing the credit union's common bond is added to the field of membership. This may occur through various ways including agreement between the group and the credit union directly, or through a merger, corporate acquisition, purchase and assumption (P&A), or spin-off.
Second, if the entire field of membership is acquired by another corporation, the credit union can serve the employees of the new corporation and any subsidiaries after receiving NCUA approval.
Third, a federal credit union qualifies to change its common bond from:
• A single occupational common bond to a single associational common bond;
• A single occupational common bond to a community charter; or
• A single occupational common bond to a multiple common bond.
Fourth, a federal credit union removes a portion of the group from its field of membership through agreement with the group, a spin-off, or because a portion of the group is no longer in existence.
An existing single occupational common bond federal credit union that submits a request to amend its charter must provide documentation to establish that the occupational common bond requirement has been met. The Office of Consumer Protection Director must approve all amendments to an occupational common bond credit union's field of membership.
If the single common bond group that comprises a federal credit union's field of membership undergoes a substantial restructuring, the result is often that portions of the group are sold or spun off. This requires a change to the credit union's field of membership. NCUA will not permit a single common bond credit union to maintain in its field of membership a sold or spun-off group to which it has been providing service unless the group otherwise qualifies for membership in the credit union or the credit union converts to a multiple common bond credit union.
If the group comprising the single common bond of the credit union merges with, or is acquired by, another group, the credit union can serve the new group resulting from the merger or acquisition after receiving a housekeeping amendment.
Prior to granting a common bond expansion, NCUA will examine the amendment's likely effect on the credit union's operations and financial condition. In most cases, the information needed for analyzing the effect of adding a particular group will be available to NCUA through the examination and financial and statistical reports; however, in particular cases, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may require additional information prior to making a decision.
A federal credit union requesting a common bond expansion must submit an Application for Field of Membership Amendment (NCUA 4015-EZ) to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. An authorized credit union representative must sign the request.
All requests for approval to amend a federal credit union's charter must be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director.
NCUA staff will review all amendment requests in order to ensure compliance with NCUA policy.
Before acting on a proposed amendment, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may require an on-site review. In addition, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may, after taking into account the significance of the proposed field of membership amendment, require the applicant to submit a business plan addressing specific issues.
The financial and operational condition of the requesting credit union will be considered in every instance. NCUA will carefully consider the economic advisability of expanding the field of membership of a credit union with financial or operational problems.
In most cases, field of membership amendments will only be approved for credit unions that are operating satisfactorily. Generally, if a federal credit union is having difficulty providing service to its current membership, or is experiencing financial or other operational problems, it may have more difficulty serving an expanded field of membership.
Occasionally, however, an expanded field of membership may provide the basis for reversing current financial problems. In such cases, an amendment to expand the field of membership may be granted notwithstanding the credit union's financial or operational problems. The applicant credit union must clearly establish that the expanded field of membership is in the best interest of the members and will not increase the risk to the NCUSIF.
If the Office of Consumer Protection Director approves the requested amendment, the credit union will be issued an amendment to Section 5 of its charter.
When the Office of Consumer Protection Director disapproves any application, in whole or in part, to amend the field of membership under this chapter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• Options to consider, if appropriate, for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedure.
If a field of membership expansion request, merger, or spin-off is denied by staff, the federal credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial. The appeal must be clearly identified as such and must address the specific reason(s) the federal credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection, or as applicable, the appropriate regional office. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal to the Board with a recommendation.
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the office rendering the initial decision for reconsideration. A reconsideration will contain new and material evidence addressing the reasons for the initial denial. The office rendering the initial decision will have 30 days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the request is again denied, the applicant may proceed with the appeal process within 60 days of the date of the last denial. A second request for reconsideration will be treated as an appeal to the NCUA Board.
In general, other than the addition of common bond groups, there are three additional ways a federal credit union with a single occupational common bond can expand its field of membership:
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a common bond or emergency merger;
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a common bond or emergency purchase and assumption (P&A); or
• By taking a portion of another credit union's field of membership through a common bond spin-off.
Generally, the requirements applicable to field of membership expansions found in this chapter apply to mergers where the continuing credit union has a federal charter. That is, the two credit unions must share a common bond.
Where the merging credit union is state-chartered, the common bond rules applicable to a federal credit union apply.
Mergers must be approved by the NCUA regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union, and, as applicable, the state regulators.
If a single occupational credit union wants to merge into a multiple common bond or community credit union, Section IV.D or Section V.D of this chapter, respectively, should be reviewed.
An emergency merger may be approved by NCUA without regard to common bond or other legal constraints. An emergency merger involves NCUA's direct intervention and approval. The credit union to be merged must either be insolvent or in danger of insolvency, as defined in the Glossary, and NCUA must determine that:
• An emergency requiring expeditious action exists;
• Other alternatives are not reasonably available; and
• The public interest would best be served by approving the merger.
If not corrected, conditions that could lead to insolvency include, but are not limited to:
• Abandonment by management;
• Loss of sponsor;
• Serious and persistent recordkeeping problems; or
• Serious and persistent operational concerns.
In an emergency merger situation, NCUA will take an active role in finding a suitable merger partner (continuing credit union). NCUA is primarily concerned that the continuing credit union has the financial strength and management expertise to absorb the troubled credit union without adversely affecting its own financial condition and stability.
As a stipulated condition to an emergency merger, the field of membership of the merging credit union may be transferred intact to the continuing federal credit union without regard to any common bond restrictions. Under this authority, therefore, a single occupational common bond federal credit union may take into its field of membership any dissimilar charter type.
The common bond characteristic of the continuing credit union in an emergency merger does not change. That is, even though the merging credit union is a multiple common bond or community, the continuing credit union will remain a single common bond credit union. Similarly, if the merging credit union is also an unlike single common bond, the continuing credit union will remain a single common bond credit union. Future common bond expansions will be based on the continuing credit union's original single common bond.
Emergency mergers involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
Another alternative for acquiring the field of membership of a failing credit union is through a consolidation known as a P&A. A P&A has limited application because, in most cases, the failing credit union must be placed into involuntary liquidation. In the few instances where a P&A may be appropriate, the assuming federal credit union, as with emergency mergers, may acquire the entire field of membership if the emergency merger criteria are satisfied. However, if the P&A does not meet the emergency merger criteria, it must be processed under the common bond requirements.
In a P&A processed under the emergency criteria, specified loans, shares, and certain other designated assets and liabilities, without regard to common bond restrictions, may also be acquired without changing the character of the continuing federal credit union for purposes of future field of membership amendments.
If the purchased and/or assumed credit union's field of membership does not share a common bond with the purchasing and/or assuming credit union, then the continuing credit union's original common bond will be controlling for future common bond expansions.
P&As involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the purchased and/or assumed credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
A spin-off occurs when, by agreement of the parties, a portion of the field of membership, assets, liabilities, shares, and capital of a credit union are transferred to a new or existing credit union. A spin-off is unique in that usually one credit union has a field of membership expansion and the other loses a portion of its field of membership.
All common bond requirements apply regardless of whether the spun-off group becomes a new credit union or goes to an existing federal charter.
The request for approval of a spin-off must be supported with a plan that addresses, at a minimum:
• Why the spin-off is being requested;
• What part of the field of membership is to be spun off;
• Whether the affected credit unions have a common bond (applies only to single occupational credit unions);
• Which assets, liabilities, shares, and capital are to be transferred;
• The financial impact the spin-off will have on the affected credit unions;
• The ability of the acquiring credit union to effectively serve the new members;
• The proposed spin-off date; and
• Disclosure to the members of the requirements set forth above.
The spin-off request must also include current financial statements from the affected credit unions and the proposed voting ballot.
For federal credit unions spinning off a group, membership notice and voting requirements and procedures are the same as for mergers (see part 708 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations), except that only the members directly affected by the spin-off—those whose shares are to be transferred—are permitted to vote. Members whose shares are not being transferred will not be afforded the opportunity to vote. All members of the group to be spun off (whether they voted in favor, against, or not at all) will be transferred if the spin-off is approved by the voting membership. Voting requirements for federally insured state credit unions are governed by state law.
Spin-offs involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by all regional directors where the credit unions are headquartered and the state regulators, as applicable. Spin-offs in the same region also require approval by the state regulator, as applicable. Spin-offs involving the creation of a new federally insured credit union require the approval of the Office of Consumer Protection Director. The Office of Consumer Protection also provides advice regarding field of membership compatibility when appropriate.
An overlap exists when a group of persons is eligible for membership in two or more credit unions. NCUA will permit single occupational federal credit unions to overlap any other charter without performing an overlap analysis.
A federal credit union's field of membership will always be governed by the common bond descriptions contained in Section 5 of its charter. Where a sponsor organization expands its operations internally, by acquisition or otherwise, the credit union may serve these new entrants to its field of membership if they are part of the common bond described in Section 5. NCUA will permit a complete overlap of the credit unions' fields of membership.
If a sponsor organization sells off a group, new members can no longer be served unless they otherwise qualify for membership in the credit union or it converts to a multiple common bond charter.
Credit unions must submit documentation explaining the restructuring and providing information regarding the new organizational structure.
An exclusionary clause is a limitation precluding the credit union from serving the primary members of a portion of a group otherwise included in its field of membership. NCUA no longer grants exclusionary clauses. Those granted prior to
A single occupational common bond federal credit union may apply to convert to a community charter provided the field of membership requirements of the community charter are met. Groups within the existing charter which cannot qualify in the new charter cannot be served except for members of record, or groups or communities obtained in an emergency merger or P&A. A credit union must notify all groups that will be removed from the field of membership as a result of conversion. Members of record can continue to be served. Also, in order to support a case for a conversion, the applicant federal credit union may be required to develop a detailed business plan as specified in Chapter 2, Section V.A.3 of this manual.
A single occupational common bond federal credit union may apply to convert to a multiple common bond charter by adding a non-common bond group that is within a reasonable proximity of a service facility. Groups within the existing charter may be retained and continue to be served. However, future amendments, including any expansions of the original single common bond group, must be done in accordance with multiple common bond policy.
A credit union may request removal of a portion of the common bond group from its field of membership for various reasons. The most common reasons for this type of amendment are:
• The group is within the field of membership of two credit unions and one wishes to discontinue service;
• The federal credit union cannot continue to provide adequate service to the group;
• The group has ceased to exist;
• The group does not respond to repeated requests to contact the credit union or refuses to provide needed support; or
• The group initiates action to be removed from the field of membership.
When a federal credit union requests an amendment to remove a group from its field of membership, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will determine why the credit union desires to remove the group. If the Office of Consumer Protection Director concurs with the request, membership will continue for those who are already members under the “once a member, always a member” provision of the Federal Credit Union Act.
A number of persons, by virtue of their close relationship to a common bond group, may be included, at the charter applicant's option, in the field of membership. These include the following:
• Spouses of persons who died while within the field of membership of this credit union;
• Employees of this credit union;
• Persons retired as pensioners or annuitants from the above employment;
• Volunteers;
• Members of the immediate family or household;
• Honorably discharged veterans who served in any of the Armed Services of the United States listed in this charter;
Organizations of such persons; and
• Corporate or other legal entities in this charter.
Immediate family is defined as spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. This includes stepparents, stepchildren, stepsiblings, and adoptive relationships.
Household is defined as persons living in the same residence maintaining a single economic unit.
Membership eligibility is extended only to individuals who are members of an “immediate family or household” of a credit union member. It is not necessary for the primary member to join the credit union in order for the immediate family or household member of the primary member to join, provided the immediate family or household clause is included in the field of membership. However, it is necessary for the immediate family member or household member to first join in order for that person's immediate family member or household member to join the credit union. A credit union can adopt a more restrictive definition of immediate family or household.
Volunteers, by virtue of their close relationship with a sponsor group, may be included. Examples include volunteers working at a hospital or school.
Under the Federal Credit Union Act, once a person becomes a member of the credit union, such person may remain a member of the credit union until the person chooses to withdraw or is expelled from the membership of the credit union. This is commonly referred to as “once a member, always a member.” The “once a member, always a member” provision does not prevent a credit union from restricting services to members who are no longer within the field of membership.
A single associational federal credit union may include in its field of membership, regardless of location, all members and employees of a recognized association. A single associational common bond consists of individuals (natural persons) and/or groups (non-natural persons) whose members participate in activities developing common loyalties, mutual benefits, and mutual interests. Separately chartered associational groups can establish a single common bond relationship if they are integrally related and share common goals and purposes. For example, two or more churches of the same denomination, Knights of Columbus Councils, or locals of the same union can qualify as a single associational common bond. Individuals and groups eligible for membership in a single associational credit union can include the following:
• Natural person members of the association (for example, members of a union or church members);
• Non-natural person members of the association;
• Employees of the association (for example, employees of the labor union or employees of the church); and
• The association.
Generally, a single associational common bond does not include a geographic definition and can operate nationally. However, a proposed or existing federal credit union may limit its field of membership to a single association or geographic area. NCUA may impose a geographic limitation if it is determined that the applicant credit union does not have the ability to serve a larger group or there are other operational concerns. All single associational common bonds should include a definition of the group that may be served based on the association's charter, bylaws, and any other equivalent documentation.
Applicants for a single associational common bond federal credit union charter or a field of membership amendment to include an association must provide, at the request of NCUA, a copy of the association's charter, bylaws, or other equivalent documentation, including any legal documents required by the state or other governing authority. The associational sponsor itself may also be included in the field of membership—
As a threshold matter, when reviewing an application to include an association in a federal credit union's field of membership, NCUA will determine if the association has been formed primarily for the purpose of expanding credit union membership. If NCUA makes such a determination, then the analysis ends and the association is denied inclusion in the federal credit union's field of membership. If NCUA determines that the association was formed to serve some other separate function as an organization, then NCUA will apply the following totality of the circumstances test to determine if the association satisfies the associational common bond requirements. The totality of the circumstances test consists of the following factors:
1. Whether the association provides opportunities for members to participate in the furtherance of the goals of the association;
2. Whether the association maintains a membership list;
3. Whether the association sponsors other activities;
4. Whether the association's membership eligibility requirements are authoritative;
5. Whether members pay dues;
6. Whether the members have voting rights; to meet this requirement, members need not vote directly for an officer, but may vote for a delegate who in turn represents the members' interests;
7. The frequency of meetings; and
8. Separateness—NCUA reviews if there is corporate separateness between the group and the federal credit union. The group and the federal credit union must operate in a way that demonstrates the separate corporate existence of each entity. Specifically, this means the federal credit union's and the group's respective business transactions, accounts, and corporate records are not intermingled.
No one factor alone is determinative of membership eligibility as an association. The totality of the circumstances controls over any individual factor in the test. However, NCUA's primary focus will be on factors 1-4 of this section.
NCUA automatically approves the below groups as satisfying the associational common bond provisions. NCUA only approves regular members of an approved group. Honorary, affiliate, or non-regular members do not qualify.
These groups are:
(1) Alumni associations;
(2) Religious organizations, including churches or groups of related churches;
(3) Electric cooperatives;
(4) Homeowner associations;
(5) Labor unions;
(6) Scouting groups;
(7) Parent teacher associations (PTAs) organized at the local level to serve a single school district;
(8) Chamber of commerce groups (members only and not employees of members);
(9) Athletic booster clubs whose members have voting rights;
(10) Fraternal organizations or civic groups with a mission of community service whose members have voting rights;
(11) Organizations having a mission based on preserving or furthering the culture of a particular national or ethnic origin; and
(12) Organizations promoting social interaction or educational initiatives among persons sharing a common occupational profession.
A support group whose members are continually changing or whose duration is temporary may not meet the single associational common bond criteria. Each class of member will be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. Individuals or honorary members who only make donations to the association are not eligible to join the credit union.
Student groups (
Tenant groups, consumer groups, and other groups of persons having an “interest in” a particular cause and certain consumer cooperatives may also qualify as an association.
Associations based primarily on a client-customer relationship do not meet associational common bond requirements. Health clubs are an example of a group not meeting associational common bond requirements, including YMCAs. However, having an incidental client-customer relationship does not preclude an associational charter as long as the associational common bond requirements are met. For example, a fraternal association that offers insurance, which is not a condition of membership, may qualify as a valid associational common bond.
If the association's membership or geographical definitions in its charter and bylaws are changed subsequent to the effective date stated in the field of membership, the credit union must submit the revised charter or bylaws for NCUA's consideration and approval prior to serving members of the association added as a result of the change.
Some examples of associational common bonds are:
• Regular members of Locals 10 and 13, IBEW, in Florida, who qualify for membership in accordance with their charter and bylaws in effect on May 20, 2001;
• Members of the Hoosier Farm Bureau in Grant, Logan, or Lee Counties of Indiana, who qualify for membership in accordance with its charter and bylaws in effect on March 7, 1997;
• Members of the Shalom Congregation in Chevy Chase, Maryland;
• Regular members of the Corporate Executives Association, located in Westchester, New York, who qualify for membership in accordance with its charter and bylaws in effect on December 1, 1997;
• Members of the University of Wisconsin Alumni Association, located in Green Bay, Wisconsin;
• Members of the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association; or
• Members of St. John's Methodist Church and St. Luke's Methodist Church, located in Toledo, Ohio.
Some examples of insufficiently defined single associational common bonds are:
• All Lutherans in the United States (too broadly defined); or
• Veterans of U.S. military service (group is too broadly defined; no formal association of all members of the group).
Some examples of unacceptable single associational common bonds are:
• Alumni of Amos University (no formal association);
• Customers of Fleetwood Insurance Company (policyholders or primarily customer/client relationships do not meet associational standards);
• Employees of members of the Reston, Virginia, Chamber of Commerce (not a sufficiently close tie to the associational common bond); or
• Members of St. John's Lutheran Church and St. Mary's Catholic Church located in Anniston, Alabama (churches are not of the same denomination).
Section 5 of every associational federal credit union's charter defines the field of membership the credit union can legally serve. Only those persons who, or legal entities that, join the credit union and are specified in the field of membership can be served. There are three instances in which Section 5 must be amended by NCUA.
First, a group that shares the credit union's common bond is added to the field of membership. This may occur through various ways including agreement between the group and the credit union directly, or through a merger, purchase and assumption (P&A), or spin-off.
Second, a federal credit union qualifies to change its common bond from:
• A single associational common bond to a single occupational common bond;
• A single associational common bond to a community charter; or
• A single associational common bond to a multiple common bond.
Third, a federal credit union removes a portion of the group from its field of membership through agreement with the group, a spin-off, or a portion of the group that is no longer in existence.
An existing single associational federal credit union that submits a request to amend its charter must provide documentation to establish that the associational common bond requirement has been met. The Office of Consumer Protection Director must approve all amendments to an associational common bond credit union's field of membership.
If the single common bond group that comprises a federal credit union's field of membership undergoes a substantial restructuring, the result is often that portions of the group are sold or spun off. This is an event requiring a change to the credit union's field of membership. NCUA may not permit a single associational credit union to maintain in its field of membership a sold or spun-off group to which it has been providing service unless the group otherwise qualifies for membership in the credit union or the credit union converts to a multiple common bond credit union.
If the group comprising the single common bond of the credit union merges with, or is acquired by, another group, the credit union can serve the new group resulting from the merger or acquisition after receiving a housekeeping amendment.
Prior to granting a common bond expansion, NCUA will examine the amendment's likely impact on the credit union's operations and financial condition. In most cases, the information needed for analyzing the effect of adding a particular group will be available to NCUA through the examination and financial and statistical reports; however, in particular cases, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may
A federal credit union requesting a common bond expansion must submit an Application for Field of Membership Amendment (NCUA 4015-EZ) to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. An authorized credit union representative must sign the request.
All requests for approval to amend a federal credit union's charter must be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director.
NCUA staff will review all amendment requests in order to ensure conformance to NCUA policy.
Before acting on a proposed amendment, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may require an on-site review. In addition, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may, after taking into account the significance of the proposed field of membership amendment, require the applicant to submit a business plan addressing specific issues.
The financial and operational condition of the requesting credit union will be considered in every instance. The economic advisability of expanding the field of membership of a credit union with financial or operational problems must be carefully considered.
In most cases, field of membership amendments will only be approved for credit unions that are operating satisfactorily. Generally, if a federal credit union is having difficulty providing service to its current membership, or is experiencing financial or other operational problems, it may have more difficulty serving an expanded field of membership.
Occasionally, however, an expanded field of membership may provide the basis for reversing current financial problems. In such cases, an amendment to expand the field of membership may be granted notwithstanding the credit union's financial or operational problems. The applicant credit union must clearly establish that the expanded field of membership is in the best interest of the members and will not increase the risk to the NCUSIF.
If the Office of Consumer Protection Director approves the requested amendment, the credit union will be issued an amendment to Section 5 of its charter.
When the Office of Consumer Protection Director disapproves any application, in whole or in part, to amend the field of membership under this chapter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• Options to consider, if appropriate, for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedures.
If a field of membership expansion request, merger, or spin-off is denied by staff, the federal credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial and must be clearly identified as such and address the reason(s) the federal credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection, or as applicable, the appropriate regional office. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal to the NCUA Board with a recommendation.
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the office rendering the initial decision for reconsideration. A reconsideration will contain new and material evidence addressing the reasons for the initial denial. The office rendering the initial decision will have 30 days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the request is again denied, the applicant may proceed with the appeal process within 60 days of the date of the last denial. A second request for reconsideration will be treated as an appeal to the NCUA Board.
In general, other than the addition of common bond groups, there are three additional ways a federal credit union with a single associational common bond can expand its field of membership:
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a common bond or emergency merger;
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a common bond or emergency purchase and assumption (P&A); or
• By taking a portion of another credit union's field of membership through a common bond spin-off.
Generally, the requirements applicable to field of membership expansions found in this section apply to mergers where the continuing credit union is a federal charter. That is, the two credit unions must share a common bond.
Where the merging credit union is state-chartered, the common bond rules applicable to a federal credit union apply.
Mergers must be approved by the NCUA regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union, and, as applicable, the state regulators.
If a single associational credit union wants to merge into a multiple common bond or community credit union, Section IV.D or Section V.D of this chapter, respectively, should be reviewed.
An emergency merger may be approved by NCUA without regard to common bond or other legal constraints. An emergency merger involves NCUA's direct intervention and approval. The credit union to be merged must either be insolvent or in danger of insolvency, as defined in the Glossary, and NCUA must determine that:
• An emergency requiring expeditious action exists;
• Other alternatives are not reasonably available; and
• The public interest would best be served by approving the merger.
If not corrected, conditions that could lead to insolvency include, but are not limited to:
• Abandonment by management;
• Loss of sponsor;
• Serious and persistent record-keeping problems; or
• Serious and persistent operational concerns.
In an emergency merger situation, NCUA will take an active role in finding a suitable merger partner (continuing credit union). NCUA is primarily concerned that the continuing credit union has the financial strength and management expertise to absorb the troubled credit union without adversely affecting its own financial condition and stability.
As a stipulated condition to an emergency merger, the field of membership of the merging credit union may be transferred intact to the continuing federal credit union without regard to any common bond restrictions. Under this authority, therefore, a single associational common bond federal credit union may take into its field of membership any dissimilar charter type.
The common bond characteristic of the continuing credit union in an emergency merger does not change. That is, even though the merging credit union is a multiple common bond or community, the continuing credit union will remain a single common bond credit union. Similarly, if the merging credit union is an unlike single common bond, the continuing credit union will remain a single common bond credit union. Future common bond expansions will be based on the continuing credit union's single common bond.
Emergency mergers involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
Another alternative for acquiring the field of membership of a failing credit union is through a consolidation known as a P&A. A P&A has limited application because, in most cases, the failing credit union must be placed into involuntary liquidation. In the few instances where a P&A may be appropriate, the assuming federal credit union, as with emergency mergers, may acquire the entire field of membership if the emergency merger
In a P&A processed under the emergency criteria, specified loans, shares, and certain other designated assets and liabilities, without regard to common bond restrictions, may also be acquired without changing the character of the continuing federal credit union for purposes of future field of membership amendments.
If the purchased and/or assumed credit union's field of membership does not share a common bond with the purchasing and/or assuming credit union, then the continuing credit union's original common bond will be controlling for future common bond expansions.
P&As involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the purchased and/or assumed credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
A spin-off occurs when, by agreement of the parties, a portion of the field of membership, assets, liabilities, shares, and capital of a credit union are transferred to a new or existing credit union. A spin-off is unique in that usually one credit union has a field of membership expansion and the other loses a portion of its field of membership.
All common bond requirements apply regardless of whether the spun-off group becomes a new credit union or goes to an existing federal charter.
The request for approval of a spin-off must be supported with a plan that addresses, at a minimum:
• Why the spin-off is being requested;
• What part of the field of membership is to be spun off;
• Whether the affected credit unions have the same common bond (applies only to single associational credit unions);
• Which assets, liabilities, shares, and capital are to be transferred;
• The financial impact the spin-off will have on the affected credit unions;
• The ability of the acquiring credit union to effectively serve the new members;
• The proposed spin-off date; and
• Disclosure to the members of the requirements set forth above.
The spin-off request must also include current financial statements from the affected credit unions and the proposed voting ballot.
For federal credit unions spinning off a group, membership notice and voting requirements and procedures are the same as for mergers (see part 708 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations), except that only the members directly affected by the spin-off—those whose shares are to be transferred—are permitted to vote. Members whose shares are not being transferred will not be afforded the opportunity to vote. All members of the group to be spun off (whether they voted in favor, against, or not at all) will be transferred if the spin-off is approved by the voting membership. Voting requirements for federally insured state credit unions are governed by state law.
Spin-offs involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by all regional directors where the credit unions are headquartered and the state regulators, as applicable. Spin-offs in the same region also require approval by the state regulator, as applicable. Spin-offs involving the creation of a new federally insured credit union require the approval of the Office of Consumer Protection Director. The Office of Consumer Protection also provides advice regarding field of membership compatibility when appropriate.
An overlap exists when a group of persons is eligible for membership in two or more credit unions. NCUA will permit single associational federal credit unions to overlap any other charters without performing an overlap analysis.
A federal credit union's field of membership will always be governed by the common bond descriptions contained in Section 5 of its charter. Where a sponsor organization expands its operations internally, by acquisition or otherwise, the credit union may serve these new entrants to its field of membership if they are part of the common bond described in Section 5. NCUA will permit a complete overlap of the credit unions' fields of membership. If a sponsor organization sells off a group, new members can no longer be served unless they otherwise qualify for membership in the credit union or it converts to a multiple common bond.
Credit unions must submit documentation explaining the restructuring and providing information regarding the new organizational structure.
An exclusionary clause is a limitation precluding the credit union from serving the primary members of a portion of a group otherwise included in its field of membership. NCUA no longer grants exclusionary clauses. Those granted prior to the adoption of this new Chartering and Field of Membership Manual will remain in effect unless the credit unions agree to remove them or one of the affected credit unions submits a housekeeping amendment to have it removed.
A single associational common bond federal credit union may apply to convert to a community charter provided the field of membership requirements of the community charter are met. Groups within the existing charter which cannot qualify in the new charter cannot be served except for members of record, or groups or communities obtained in an emergency merger or P&A. A credit union must notify all groups that will be removed from the field of membership as a result of conversion. Members of record can continue to be served. Also, in order to support a case for a conversion, the applicant federal credit union may be required to develop a detailed business plan as specified in Chapter 2, Section V.A.3 of this manual.
A single associational common bond federal credit union may apply to convert to a multiple common bond charter by adding a non-common bond group that is within a reasonable proximity of a service facility. Groups within the existing charter may be retained and continue to be served. However, future amendments, including any expansions of the original single common bond group, must be done in accordance with multiple common bond policy.
A credit union may request removal of a portion of the common bond group from its field of membership for various reasons. The most common reasons for this type of amendment are:
• The group is within the field of membership of two credit unions and one wishes to discontinue service;
• The federal credit union cannot continue to provide adequate service to the group;
• The group has ceased to exist;
• The group does not respond to repeated requests to contact the credit union or refuses to provide needed support; or
• The group initiates action to be removed from the field of membership.
When a federal credit union requests an amendment to remove a group from its field of membership, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will determine why the credit union desires to remove the group. If the Office of Consumer Protection Director concurs with the request, membership will continue for those who are already members under the “once a member, always a member” provision of the Federal Credit Union Act.
A number of persons by virtue of their close relationship to a common bond group may be included, at the charter applicant's option, in the field of membership. These include the following:
• Spouses of persons who died while within the field of membership of this credit union;
• Employees of this credit union;
• Volunteers;
• Members of the immediate family or household;
• Honorably discharged veterans who served in any of the Armed Services of the United States in this charter;
Organizations of such persons; and
• Corporate or other legal entities in this charter.
Immediate family is defined as spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. This includes stepparents, stepchildren, stepsiblings, and adoptive relationships.
Household is defined as persons living in the same residence maintaining a single economic unit.
Membership eligibility is extended only to individuals who are members of an “immediate family or household” of a credit
Volunteers, by virtue of their close relationship with a sponsor group, may be included. One example is volunteers working at a church.
Under the Federal Credit Union Act, once a person becomes a member of the credit union, such person may remain a member of the credit union until the person chooses to withdraw or is expelled from the membership of the credit union. This is commonly referred to as “once a member, always a member.” The “once a member, always a member” provision does not prevent a credit union from restricting services to members who are no longer within the field of membership.
A federal credit union may be chartered to serve a combination of distinct, definable single occupational and/or associational common bonds. This type of credit union is called a multiple common bond credit union. Each group in the field of membership must have its own occupational or associational common bond. For example, a multiple common bond credit union may include two unrelated employers, or two unrelated associations, or a combination of two or more employers or associations. Additionally, these groups must be within reasonable geographic proximity of the credit union. That is, the groups must be within the service area of one of the credit union's service facilities. These groups are referred to as select groups. A multiple common bond credit union cannot include a TIP or expand using single common bond criteria.
Employment in a corporation or other legal entity which is related to another legal entity (such as a company under contract and possessing a strong dependency relationship with another company) makes that person part of the occupational common bond of a select employee group within a multiple common bond.
A multiple common bond credit union is also able to serve the employees of tenants who work in an industrial park, such as a shopping mall or office park, without listing each occupational group, provided that each tenant employee group has fewer than 3,000 employees at the location. In addition, only employees who work at the facility during the tenancy are eligible for membership. New tenants would be eligible for membership subject to the above requirements.
A federal credit union's service area is the area that can reasonably be served by the service facilities accessible to the groups within the field of membership. The service area will most often coincide with that geographic area primarily served by the service facility. Additionally, the groups served by the credit union must have access to the service facility. The non-availability of other credit union service is a factor to be considered in determining whether the group is within reasonable proximity of a credit union wishing to add the group to its field of membership.
A service facility includes the means for a multiple common bond credit union to accept shares for members' accounts, accept loan applications from them or disburse loans to them. This definition includes a credit union owned branch, a mobile branch, an office operated on a regularly scheduled weekly basis, a credit union owned ATM, a credit union owned electronic facility, or a credit union's transactional Web site that meets the above listed transactional requirements (a “transactional Web site”). A credit union's transactional Web site that meets these requirements may be accessed by a computer, smart phone, tablet, or similar technological device. This definition of service facility does not meet the requirement that a credit union establish and maintain an office or facility in an underserved area.
The select group as a whole will be considered to be within a credit union's service area when:
• A majority of the persons in a select group live, work, or gather regularly within the service area;
• The group's headquarters is located within the service area; or
• The group's “paid from” or “supervised from” location is within the service area.
An example of a multiple common bond field of membership is:
“The field of membership of this federal credit union shall be limited to the following:
1. Employees of Teltex Corporation who work in Wilmington, Delaware;
2. Partners and employees of Smith & Jones, Attorneys at Law, who work in Wilmington, Delaware;
3. Members of the M&L Association in Wilmington, Delaware, who qualify for membership in accordance with its charter and bylaws in effect on December 31, 1997;
4. Employees of tenants with fewer than 3,000 employees of MJB Office Park who work in MJB Office Park's Wilmington, Delaware location.”
Section 5 of every multiple common bond federal credit union's charter defines the field of membership and select groups the credit union can legally serve. Only those persons or legal entities specified in the field of membership can be served. There are a number of instances in which Section 5 must be amended by NCUA.
First, a new select group is added to the field of membership. This may occur through agreement between the group and the credit union directly, or through a merger, corporate acquisition, purchase and assumption (P&A), or spin-off.
Second, a federal credit union qualifies to change its charter from:
• A single occupational or associational charter to a multiple common bond charter;
• A multiple common bond to a single occupational or associational charter;
• A multiple common bond to a community charter; or
• A community to a multiple common bond charter.
Third, a federal credit union removes a group from its field of membership through agreement with the group, a spin-off, or because the group no longer exists.
An existing multiple common bond federal credit union that submits a request to amend its charter must provide documentation to establish that the multiple common bond requirements have been met. The Office of Consumer Protection Director must approve all amendments to a multiple common bond credit union's field of membership.
NCUA will approve groups to a credit union's field of membership if the agency determines in writing that the following criteria are met:
• The credit union has not engaged in any unsafe or unsound practice, as determined by the Office of Consumer Protection Director, with input from the appropriate regional director, which is material during the one year period preceding the filing to add the group;
• The credit union is “adequately capitalized” pursuant to part 702 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations. For low-income credit unions or credit unions chartered less than ten years, the Office of Consumer Protection Director, with input from the appropriate regional director, may determine that a less than “adequately capitalized” credit union can qualify for an expansion if it is making reasonable progress toward becoming “adequately capitalized.” For any other credit union, the Office of Consumer Protection Director, with input from the appropriate regional director, may determine that a less than “adequately capitalized” credit union can qualify for an expansion if it is making reasonable progress toward becoming “adequately capitalized,” and the addition of the group would not adversely affect the credit union's capitalization level;
• The credit union has the administrative capability to serve the proposed group and the financial resources to meet the need for additional staff and assets to serve the new group;
• Any potential harm the expansion may have on any other credit union and its members is clearly outweighed by the probable beneficial effect of the expansion. With respect to a proposed expansion's effect on other credit unions, the requirements on overlapping fields of membership set forth in Section IV.E of this chapter are also applicable; and
• If the formation of a separate credit union by such group is not practical and consistent with reasonable standards for the safe and sound operation of a credit union.
Additional information is required for groups of 3,000 or more primary potential
A multiple common bond credit union requesting a select group expansion must submit a formal written request, using the Application for Field of Membership Amendment (NCUA 4015 or NCUA 4015-EZ) to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. An authorized credit union representative must sign the request.
The NCUA 4015-EZ (for groups less than 3,000 potential members) must be accompanied by the following:
• A letter, or equivalent documentation, from the group requesting credit union service. This letter must indicate:
• That the group wants to be added to the applicant federal credit union's field of membership;
• The number of persons currently included within the group to be added and their locations; and
• The group's proximity to credit union's nearest service facility.
• The most recent copy of the group's charter and bylaws or equivalent documentation (for associational groups).
The NCUA 4015 (for groups between 3,000 and 4,999 primary potential members) must be accompanied by the following:
• A letter, or equivalent documentation, from the group requesting credit union service. This letter must indicate:
• That the group wants to be added to the federal credit union's field of membership;
• Whether the group presently has other credit union service available;
• The number of persons currently included within the group to be added and their locations;
• The group's proximity to credit union's nearest service facility, and
• Why the formation of a separate credit union for the group is not practical or consistent with safety and soundness standards because of a lack of available subsidies, interest among the group's members, and sufficient resources.
The NCUA 4015 (for groups of 5,000 or more primary potential members) must be accompanied by the following:
• A letter, or equivalent documentation, from the group requesting credit union service. This letter must indicate:
• That the group wants to be added to the federal credit union's field of membership;
• Whether the group presently has other credit union service available;
• The number of persons currently included within the group to be added and their locations;
• The group's proximity to credit union's nearest service facility, and
• Why the formation of a separate credit union for the group is not practical or consistent with safety and soundness standards. A credit union need not address every item on the list, simply those issues that are relevant to its particular request:
Member location—whether the membership is widely dispersed or concentrated in a central location.
Demographics—the employee turnover rate, economic status of the group's members, and whether the group is more apt to consist of savers and/or borrowers.
Market competition—the availability of other financial services.
Desired services and products—the type of services the group desires in comparison to the type of services a new credit union could offer.
Sponsor subsidies—the availability of operating subsidies.
The desire of the sponsor—the extent of the sponsor's interest in supporting a credit union charter.
Employee interest—the extent of the employees' interest in obtaining a credit union charter.
Evidence of past failure—whether the group previously had its own credit union or previously filed for a credit union charter.
Administrative capacity to provide services—will the group have the management expertise to provide the services requested.
• If the group is eligible for membership in any other credit union, documentation must be provided to support inclusion of the group under the overlap standards set forth in Section IV.E of this chapter; and
• The most recent copy of the group's charter and bylaws or equivalent documentation (for associational groups).
If a select group within a federal credit union's field of membership undergoes a substantial restructuring, a change to the credit union's field of membership may be required if the credit union is to continue to provide service to the select group. NCUA permits a multiple common bond credit union to maintain in its field of membership a sold, spun-off, or merged select group to which it has been providing service. This type of amendment to the credit union's charter is not considered an expansion; therefore, the criteria relating to adding new groups are not applicable.
When two groups merge and each is in the field of membership of a credit union, then both (or all affected) credit unions can serve the resulting merged group, subject to any existing geographic limitation and without regard to any overlap provisions. However, the credit unions cannot serve the other multiple groups that may be in the field of membership of the other credit union.
All requests for approval to amend a federal credit union's charter must be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director.
NCUA staff will review all amendment requests in order to ensure conformance to NCUA policy.
Before acting on a proposed amendment, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may require an on-site review. In addition, the Office of Consumer Protection Director may, after taking into account the significance of the proposed field of membership amendment, require the applicant to submit a business plan addressing specific issues.
The financial and operational condition of the requesting credit union will be considered in every instance. An expanded field of membership may provide the basis for reversing adverse trends. In such cases, an amendment to expand the field of membership may be granted notwithstanding the credit union's adverse trends. The applicant credit union must clearly establish that the approval of the expanded field of membership meets the requirements of Section IV.B.2 of this chapter and will not increase the risk to the NCUSIF.
If the Office of Consumer Protection Director approves the requested amendment, the credit union will be issued an amendment to Section 5 of its charter.
When the Office of Consumer Protection Director disapproves any application, in whole or in part, to amend the field of membership under this chapter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• Options to consider, if appropriate, for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedure.
If a field of membership expansion request, merger, or spin-off is denied by staff, the federal credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial and must be clearly identified as such and address the reason(s) the federal credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection or, as applicable, the appropriate regional office. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal to the NCUA Board with a recommendation.
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the office rendering the initial decision for reconsideration. A reconsideration will contain new and material evidence addressing the reasons for the initial denial. The office rendering the initial decision will have 30 days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the request is again denied, the applicant may proceed with the appeal
In general, other than the addition of select groups, there are three additional ways a multiple common bond federal credit union can expand its field of membership:
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a merger;
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a purchase and assumption (P&A); or
• By taking a portion of another credit union's field of membership through a spin-off.
A voluntary merger of two or more federal credit unions is permissible as long as each select group in the merging credit union's field of membership has less than 3,000 primary potential members. While the merger requirements outlined in Section 205 of the Federal Credit Union Act must still be met, the requirements of Chapter 2, Section IV.B.2 of this manual are not applicable.
If the merging credit unions serve the same group, and the group consists of 3,000 or more primary potential members, then the ability to form a separate credit union analysis is not required for that group. If the merging credit union has any other groups consisting of 3,000 or more primary potential members, special requirements apply. NCUA will analyze each group of 3,000 or more primary potential members, except as noted above, to determine whether the formation of a separate credit union by such a group is practical. If the formation of a separate credit union by such a group is not practical because the group lacks sufficient volunteer and other resources to support the efficient and effective operations of a credit union or does not meet the economic advisable criteria outlined in Chapter 1 of this manual, the group may be merged into a multiple common bond credit union. If the formation of a separate credit union is practical, the group must be spun-off before the merger can be approved.
A financially healthy single common bond credit union with a primary potential membership of 3,000 or more cannot merge into a multiple common bond credit union, absent supervisory reasons, unless the continuing credit union already serves the same group.
If the merger is approved, the qualifying groups within the merging credit union's field of membership will be transferred intact to the continuing credit union and can continue to be served.
Where the merging credit union is state-chartered, the field of membership rules applicable to a federal credit union apply.
Mergers must be approved by the NCUA regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union, and, as applicable, the state regulators.
The NCUA may approve the merger of any federally insured credit union when safety and soundness concerns are present without regard to the 3,000 numerical limitation. The credit union need not be insolvent or in danger of insolvency for NCUA to use this statutory authority. Examples constituting appropriate reasons for using this authority are: Abandonment of the management and/or officials and an inability to find replacements, loss of sponsor support, serious and persistent record-keeping problems, sustained material decline in financial condition, or other serious or persistent circumstances.
An emergency merger may be approved by NCUA without regard to common bond or other legal constraints. An emergency merger involves NCUA's direct intervention and approval. The credit union to be merged must either be insolvent or in danger of insolvency, as defined in the Glossary, and NCUA must determine that:
• An emergency requiring expeditious action exists;
• Other alternatives are not reasonably available; and
• The public interest would best be served by approving the merger.
If not corrected, conditions that could lead to insolvency include, but are not limited to:
• Abandonment by management;
• Loss of sponsor;
• Serious and persistent record-keeping problems; or
• Serious and persistent operational concerns.
In an emergency merger situation, NCUA will take an active role in finding a suitable merger partner (continuing credit union). NCUA is primarily concerned that the continuing credit union has the financial strength and management expertise to absorb the troubled credit union without adversely affecting its own financial condition and stability.
As a stipulated condition to an emergency merger, the field of membership of the merging credit union may be transferred intact to the continuing federal credit union without regard to any field of membership restrictions including numerical limitation requirements. Under this authority, any single occupational or associational common bond, multiple common bond, or community charter may merger into a multiple common bond credit union and that credit union can continue to serve the merging credit union's field of membership. Subsequent field of membership expansions of the continuing multiple common bond credit union must be consistent with multiple common bond policies.
Emergency mergers involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
Another alternative for acquiring the field of membership of a failing credit union is through a consolidation known as a P&A. Generally, the requirements applicable to field of membership expansions found in this chapter apply to purchase and assumptions where the purchasing credit union is a federal charter.
A P&A has limited application because, in most cases, the failing credit union must be placed into involuntary liquidation. However, in the few instances where a P&A may occur, the assuming federal credit union, as with emergency mergers, may acquire the entire field of membership if the emergency criteria are satisfied. Specified loans, shares, and certain other designated assets and liabilities, without regard to field of membership restrictions, may also be acquired without changing the character of the continuing federal credit union for purposes of future field of membership amendments. Subsequent field of membership expansions must be consistent with multiple common bond policies.
P&As involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the purchased and/or assumed credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
A spin-off occurs when, by agreement of the parties, a portion of the field of membership, assets, liabilities, shares, and capital of a credit union are transferred to a new or existing credit union. A spin-off is unique in that usually one credit union has a field of membership expansion and the other loses a portion of its field of membership.
All common bond requirements apply regardless of whether the spun-off group becomes a new charter or goes to an existing federal charter.
The request for approval of a spun-off group must be supported with a plan that addresses, at a minimum:
• Why the spin-off is being requested;
• What part of the field of membership is to be spun off;
• Which assets, liabilities, shares, and capital are to be transferred;
• The financial impact the spin-off will have on the affected credit unions;
• The ability of the acquiring credit union to effectively serve the new members;
• The proposed spin-off date; and
• Disclosure to the members of the requirements set forth above.
The spin-off request must also include current financial statements from the affected credit unions and the proposed voting ballot.
For federal credit unions spinning off a group, membership notice and voting requirements and procedures are the same as for mergers (see part 708 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations), except that only the members directly affected by the spin-off—those whose shares are to be transferred—are permitted to vote. Members whose shares are not being transferred will not be afforded the opportunity to vote. All members of the group to be spun off (whether they voted in favor, against, or not at all) will be transferred if the spin-off is approved by the voting membership. Voting requirements for federally insured state credit unions are governed by state law.
Spin-offs involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by all regional directors where the credit unions are headquartered and the state regulators, as applicable. Spin-offs in the same region also require approval by the state regulator, as applicable.
An overlap exists when a group of persons is eligible for membership in two or more credit unions, including state charters. An overlap is permitted when the expansion's beneficial effect in meeting the convenience and needs of the members of the group proposed to be included in the field of membership outweighs any adverse effect on the overlapped credit union.
Credit unions must investigate the possibility of an overlap with federally insured credit unions prior to submitting an expansion request if the group has 5,000 or more primary potential members. If cases arise where the assurance given to the Office of Consumer Protection Director concerning the unavailability of credit union service is inaccurate, the misinformation may be grounds for removal of the group from the federal credit union's charter.
When an overlap situation requiring analysis does arise, officials of the expanding credit union must ascertain the views of the overlapped credit union. If the overlapped credit union does not object, the applicant must submit a letter or other documentation to that effect. If the overlapped credit union does not respond, the expanding credit union must notify NCUA in writing of its attempt to obtain the overlapped credit union's comments.
NCUA will approve an overlap if the expansion's beneficial effect in meeting the convenience and needs of the members of the group outweighs any adverse effect on the overlapped credit union.
In reviewing the overlap, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will consider:
• The view of the overlapped credit union(s);
• Whether the overlap is incidental in nature—the group of persons in question is so small as to have no material effect on the original credit union;
• Whether there is limited participation by members or employees of the group in the original credit union after the expiration of a reasonable period of time;
• Whether the original credit union fails to provide requested service;
• Financial effect on the overlapped credit union;
• The desires of the group(s);
• The desire of the sponsor organization; and
• The best interests of the affected group and the credit union members involved.
Generally, if the overlapped credit union does not object, and NCUA determines that there is no safety and soundness problem, the overlap will be permitted.
Potential overlaps of a federally insured state credit union's field of membership by a federal credit union will generally be analyzed in the same way as if two federal credit unions were involved. Where a federally insured state credit union's field of membership is broadly stated, NCUA will exclude its field of membership from any overlap protection.
NCUA will permit multiple common bond federal credit unions to overlap community charters without performing an overlap analysis.
A federal credit union's field of membership will always be governed by the field of membership descriptions contained in Section 5 of its charter. Where a sponsor organization expands its operations internally, by acquisition or otherwise, the credit union may serve these new entrants to its field of membership if they are part of any select group listed in Section 5. Where acquisitions are made which add a new subsidiary, the group cannot be served until the subsidiary is included in the field of membership through a housekeeping amendment.
A federal credit union's field of membership will always be governed by the field of membership descriptions contained in Section 5 of its charter. Where a sponsor organization expands its operations internally, by acquisition or otherwise, the credit union may serve these new entrants to its field of membership if they are part of any select group listed in Section 5. Where acquisitions are made which add a new subsidiary, the group cannot be served until the subsidiary is included in the field of membership through a housekeeping amendment.
Overlaps may occur as a result of restructuring or merger of the parent organization. When such overlaps occur, each credit union must request a field of membership amendment to reflect the new groups each wishes to serve. The credit union can continue to serve any current group in its field of membership that is acquiring a new group or has been acquired by a new group. The new group cannot be served by the credit union until the field of membership amendment is approved by NCUA.
Credit unions affected by organizational restructuring or merger should attempt to resolve overlap issues among themselves. Unless an agreement is reached limiting the overlap resulting from the corporate restructuring, NCUA will permit a complete overlap of the credit unions' fields of membership. When two groups merge, or one group is acquired by the other, and each is in the field of membership of a credit union, both (or all affected) credit unions can serve the resulting merged or acquired group, subject to any existing geographic limitation and without regard to any overlap provisions. This is accomplished through a housekeeping amendment.
Credit unions must submit to NCUA documentation explaining the restructuring and provide information regarding the new organizational structure.
An exclusionary clause is a limitation precluding the credit union from serving the primary members of a portion of a group otherwise included in its field of membership. NCUA no longer grants exclusionary clauses. Those granted prior to the adoption of this new Chartering and Field of Membership Manual will remain in effect unless the credit unions agree to remove them or one of the affected credit unions submits a housekeeping amendment to have it removed.
A multiple common bond federal credit union may apply to convert to a community charter provided the field of membership requirements of the community charter are met. Groups within the existing charter which cannot qualify in the new charter cannot be served except for members of record, or groups or communities obtained in an emergency merger or P&A. A credit union must notify all groups that will be removed from the field of membership as a result of conversion. Members of record can continue to be served. Also, in order to support a case for a conversion, the applicant federal credit union may be required to develop a detailed business plan as specified in Chapter 2, Section V.A.3 of this manual.
A multiple common bond federal credit union may apply to convert to a single occupational or associational common bond charter provided the field of membership requirements of the new charter are met. Groups within the existing charter, which do not qualify in the new charter, cannot be served except for members of record, or groups or communities obtained in an emergency merger or P&A. A credit union must notify all groups that will be removed from the field of membership as a result of conversion.
A credit union may request removal of a group from its field of membership for various reasons. The most common reasons for this type of amendment are:
• The group is within the field of membership of two credit unions and one wishes to discontinue service;
• The federal credit union cannot continue to provide adequate service to the group;
• The group has ceased to exist;
• The group does not respond to repeated requests to contact the credit union or refuses to provide needed support;
• The group initiates action to be removed from the field of membership; or
• The federal credit union wishes to convert to a single common bond.
When a federal credit union requests an amendment to remove a group from its field of membership, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will determine why the credit union desires to remove the group. If the Office of Consumer Protection Director concurs with the request, membership will continue for those who are already members under the “once a member, always a member” provision of the Federal Credit Union Act.
NCUA has in place quality control processes that protect the integrity of its field of membership requirements. As part of this obligation, NCUA's Office of Consumer Protection will randomly select groups added through NCUA's Field of Membership Internet Application (FOMIA) system for quality assurance reviews even if the expansion application meets all the conditions for approval. Each FCU is responsible for obtaining certain documentation when seeking to add groups to its field of membership through FOMIA. In addition, as indicated in the FOMIA User Instruction Guide, available on NCUA's Web site, an FCU must permanently retain the documentation from the select group requesting service and the Confirmation Certificate generated at the time the FOMIA request is submitted to NCUA.
As part of the quality assurance process, OCP reserves the right to request this documentation at any time. If the FCU fails to provide this documentation when OCP requests it, OCP may consider removing the group from the FCU's field of membership and restricting the FCU from using the FOMIA system for future requests. Specifically, as part of the FOMIA quality assurance process, OCP staff will do the following:
1. Within 10 days of receiving an application selected for a quality assurance review, notify the FCU of the documentation OCP requires. The FCU will have 15 days to provide the necessary documentation. OCP staff will respond to the FCU with a determination on the quality assurance review of the association within 15 days of receiving the requested information;
2. After receiving the additional documentation, if any concerns remain outstanding, OCP staff will again correspond with the FCU and provide a 15-day time frame for correcting the concern. OCP staff will respond to the FCU with a determination on the quality assurance review of the association within 15 days of receiving the requested information; and
3. If the FCU does not provide the requested documentation, or cannot correct the concern, the OCP Director will deny the application and notify the credit union of its appeal rights.
NCUA's Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) is responsible for investigating field of membership complaints from the public, and matters referred to it from the field. It also pursues corrective action as needed for FCUs with confirmed field of membership violations. Although circumstances can vary with each case, OCP staff will generally adhere to the following process for investigating and addressing potential field of membership violations:
1. Initially correspond with management to outline concerns and request clarifying information within 60 days. OCP staff will also provide context as to the source of OCP's concerns, such as the discovery of new information about a particular group or an examination finding brought to OCP's attention;
2. If OCP does not receive the requested information within 60 days, it will notify the FCU and again request the required information be provided within 30 days;
3. After receiving the additional documentation, if any concerns remain outstanding, OCP staff will again correspond with the FCU to provide a 60-day time frame for addressing the concern; and
4. If the FCU is unable to correct the concern, and after consultation with the Office of General Counsel and the appropriate Regional Office, and in accordance with agency guidelines for administrative actions, OCP will remove the group from the FCU's field of membership pursuant to authority delegated by the NCUA Board. Removal of a group is treated the same as an initial denial under the Chartering Manual. In any adverse final determination on removal under the above delegations, OCP will notify the FCU of its appeal rights.
NCUA considers the removal of an association from an FCU's field of membership as an action of last resort. If a group is removed, the FCU can no longer add new members from the group, but can continue serving those who are already members of the FCU under the “once a member, always a member” provision of the Federal Credit Union Act. Also, if the group subsequently qualifies due to changes to the group itself, management can submit a new application at that time.
A number of persons, by virtue of their close relationship to a common bond group, may be included, at the charter applicant's option, in the field of membership. These include the following:
• Spouses of persons who died while within the field of membership of this credit union;
• Employees of this credit union;
• Persons retired as pensioners or annuitants from the above employment;
• Volunteers;
• Members of the immediate family or household;
• Honorably discharged veterans who served in any of the Armed Services of the United States in this charter;
• Organizations of such persons; and
• Corporate or other legal entities in this charter.
Immediate family is defined as spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. This includes stepparents, stepchildren, stepsiblings, and adoptive relationships.
Household is defined as persons living in the same residence maintaining a single economic unit.
Membership eligibility is extended only to individuals who are members of an “immediate family or household” of a credit union member. It is not necessary for the primary member to join the credit union in order for the immediate family or household member of the primary member to join, provided the immediate family or household clause is included in the field of membership. However, it is necessary for the immediate family member or household member to first join in order for that person's immediate family member or household member to join the credit union. A credit union can adopt a more restrictive definition of immediate family or household.
Volunteers, by virtue of their close relationship with a sponsor group, may be included. Examples include volunteers working at a hospital or church.
Under the Federal Credit Union Act, once a person becomes a member of the credit union, such person may remain a member of the credit union until the person chooses to withdraw or is expelled from the membership of the credit union. This is commonly referred to as “once a member, always a member.” The “once a member, always a member” provision does not prevent a credit union from restricting services to members who are no longer within the field of membership.
There are two types of community charters. One is based on a single, geographically well-defined local community or neighborhood; the other is a rural district. More than one credit union may serve the same community.
NCUA recognizes four types of affinity on which both a community charter and a rural district can be based—persons who live in, worship in, attend school in, or work in the community or rural district. Businesses and other legal entities within the community boundaries or rural district may also qualify for membership.
NCUA has established the following requirements for community charters:
• The geographic area's boundaries must be clearly defined; and
• The area is a well-defined local community or a rural district.
In addition to the documentation requirements in Chapter 1 of this manual to charter a credit union, a community credit union applicant must provide additional documentation addressing the proposed area to be served and community service policies.
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating to NCUA that the proposed community area meets the statutory requirements of being: (1) Well-defined, and (2) a local community or rural district.
“Well-defined” means the proposed area has specific geographic boundaries. Geographic boundaries may include a city,
The well-defined local community requirement is met if:
• Single Political Jurisdiction—The area to be served is in a recognized Single Political Jurisdiction,
• Statistical Area—The area is a designated Core Based Statistical Area or allowing a portion thereof, or in the case of a Core Based Statistical Area with Metropolitan Divisions, the area is a Metropolitan Division or is a portion thereof; or
• The area is a designated a Combined Statistical Area or a portion thereof; AND
• The Core Based Statistical Area, Metropolitan Division or Combined Statistical Area, or the portion thereof, must have a population of 2.5 million or less people.
• Compelling Evidence of Interaction or Common Interests—In lieu of a statistical area as defined above, this option applies when an area is substantially a Core Based Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area, but also has an additional portion falling outside, and which is immediately adjacent to, the Core Based Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area, and thus may demonstrate a sufficient level of interaction to qualify as a local community. For these situations, applicants have the option of submitting a narrative to NCUA to discuss how the residents meet the requirements for being a local community. NCUA will base its decision on a consideration of the following factors with respect to the proposed service area in its entirety:
Economic Hub: Evidence indicates residents commonly travel to a geographically compact locale within the area for work and major commerce needs. Traffic flows, the presence of common or related industries, or unified economic planning demonstrate how the locales have economic interdependence.
Population Center: Area has a dominant county or municipality with a significant portion of the area's population and evidence exists to support the relevance of the population center to all residents within the area.
Quasi-Governmental Agencies: A quasi-governmental agency, such as a regional planning commission, covers the proposed service area in its entirety and derives its leadership from the area to advance meaningful objectives advancing the residents' common interests in economic development and/or improving quality of life. Success of agency in meeting its mission depends upon collaboration from throughout the area.
Government Designations: A division of a federal or state agency specifically designates the proposed service area as its area of coverage or as a target area for specific programs.
Shared Public Services/Facilities: Formal agreements exist that provide for a common need shared by all of the residents, such as common police or fire protection, or public utilities.
Colleges and Universities: Evidence exists to demonstrate the common relevance of an institution or institutions to the entire area, such as unique educational initiatives to support economic objectives benefiting all residents and/or partnerships with local businesses or high schools.
The rural district requirement is met if:
• Rural District—
• The district has well-defined, contiguous geographic boundaries;
• The total population of the district does not exceed 1,000,000.
• Either more than 50% of the district's population resides in census blocks or other geographic areas that are designated as rural by either the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the United States Census Bureau, OR the district has a population density of 100 persons or fewer per square mile; and
• The boundaries of the well-defined rural district do not exceed the outer boundaries of the states that are
The requirements in Chapter 2, Sections V.A.4 through V.G. of this manual also apply to a credit union that serves a rural district.
If prior to July 26, 2010 NCUA has determined that a specific geographic area is a well-defined local community, then a new applicant need not reestablish that fact as part of its application to serve the exact area. The new applicant must, however, note NCUA's previous determination as part of its overall application. An applicant applying for an area after that date that is not exactly the same as the previously approved well defined local community must comply with the current criteria in place for determining a well-defined local community.
A community credit union is frequently more susceptible to competition from other local financial institutions and generally does not have substantial support from any single sponsoring company or association. As a result, a community credit union will often encounter financial and operational factors that differ from an occupational or associational charter. Its diverse membership may require special marketing programs targeted to different segments of the community. For example, the lack of payroll deduction creates special challenges in the development and promotion of savings programs and in the collection of loans. Accordingly, to support an application for a community charter, an applicant Federal credit union must develop a business plan incorporating the following data:
• Pro forma financial statements for a minimum of 24 months after the proposed conversion, including the underlying assumptions and rationale for projected member, share, loan, and asset growth;
• Anticipated financial impact on the credit union, including the need for additional employees and fixed assets, and the associated costs;
• A description of the current and proposed office/branch structure, including a general description of the location(s); parking availability, public transportation availability, drive-through service, lobby capacity, or any other service feature illustrating community access;
• A marketing plan addressing how the community will be served for the 24-month period after the proposed conversion to a community charter, including detailing: how the credit union will implement its business plan; the unique needs of the various demographic groups in the proposed community; how the credit union will market to each group, particularly underserved groups; which community-based organizations the credit union will target in its outreach efforts; the credit union's marketing budget projections dedicating greater resources to reaching new members; and the credit union's timetable for implementation, not just a calendar of events;
• Details, terms and conditions of the credit union's financial products, programs, and services to be provided to the entire community; and
• Maps showing the current and proposed service facilities, ATMs, political boundaries, major roads, and other pertinent information.
An existing Federal credit union may apply to convert to a community charter. Groups currently in the credit union's field of membership, but outside the new community credit union's boundaries, may not be included in the new community charter. Therefore, the credit union must notify groups that will be removed from the field of membership as a result of the conversion. Members of record can continue to be served.
Before approval of an application to convert to a community credit union, NCUA must be satisfied that the credit union will be viable and capable of providing services to its members.
Community credit unions will be expected to regularly review and to follow, to the fullest extent economically possible, the marketing and business plans submitted with their applications. Additionally, NCUA will
The geographic boundaries of a community Federal credit union are the areas defined in its charter. The boundaries can usually be defined using political borders, streets, rivers, railroad tracks, or other static geographical feature.
A community that is a recognized legal entity may be stated in the field of membership—for example, “Gus Township, Texas,” “Isabella City, Georgia,” or “Fairfax County, Virginia.”
A community that is a recognized Core Based Statistical Area must state in the field of membership the political jurisdiction(s) that comprise the Core Based Statistical Area.
A community field of membership may include persons who work or attend school in a particular industrial park, shopping mall, office building or complex, or similar development. The proposed field of membership must have clearly defined geographic boundaries.
A community charter does not have to include all four affinities (
• Persons who live, work, worship, or attend school in, and businesses located in the area of Johnson City, Tennessee, bounded by Fern Street on the north, Long Street on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Elm Avenue on the west;
• Persons who live or work in Green County, Maine;
• Persons who live, worship, work (or regularly conduct business in), or attend school on the University of Dayton campus, in Dayton, Ohio;
• Persons who work for businesses located in Clifton Country Mall, in Clifton Park, New York;
• Persons who live, work, or worship in the Binghamton, New York, Core Based Statistical Area, consisting of Broome and Tioga Counties, New York (a qualifying Core Based Statistical Area in its entirety);
• Persons who live, work, worship, or attend school in the portion of the Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes Canadian and Oklahoma counties, Oklahoma (two contiguous counties in a portion of a qualifying Core Based Statistical Area that has seven counties in total); or
• Persons who live, work, worship, or attend school in Uinta County or Lincoln County, Wyoming, a rural district.
Some examples of insufficiently defined local communities, neighborhoods, or rural districts are:
• Persons who live or work within and businesses located within a ten-mile radius of Washington, DC (using a radius does not establish a well-defined area);
• Persons who live or work in the industrial section of New York, New York. (not a well-defined neighborhood, community, or rural district); or
• Persons who live or work in the greater Boston area. (not a well-defined neighborhood, community, or rural district).
Some examples of unacceptable local communities, neighborhoods, or rural districts are:
• Persons who live or work in the State of California. (does not meet the definition of local community, neighborhood, or rural district).
A community credit union may amend its field of membership by adding additional affinities or removing exclusionary clauses. This can be accomplished with a housekeeping amendment.
A community credit union also may expand its geographic boundaries. Persons who live, work, worship, or attend school within the proposed well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural district must have common interests and/or interact. The credit union must follow the requirements of Section V.A.4 of this chapter.
A community credit union that is based on a Single Political Jurisdiction, a Statistical Area (
• Anticipated marginal financial impact on the credit union of adding the proposed bordering area, including the need for additional employees and fixed assets, and the associated costs;
• A description of the current and, if applicable, proposed office/branch structure specific to serving the proposed bordering area;
• A marketing plan addressing how the new community will be served for the 24-month period after the proposed expansion of a community charter, including detailing how the credit union will address the unique needs of any demographic groups in the proposed bordering community not presently served by the credit union and how the credit union will market to any new groups; and
• Details, terms and conditions of any new financial products, programs, and services to be introduced as part of this expansion.
All requests for approval to amend a community credit union's charter must be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. If a decision cannot be made within a reasonable period of time, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will notify the credit union.
The financial and operational condition of the requesting credit union will be considered in every instance. The economic advisability of expanding the field of membership of a credit union with financial or operational problems must be carefully considered.
In most cases, field of membership amendments will only be approved for credit unions that are operating satisfactorily. Generally, if a federal credit union is having difficulty providing service to its current membership, or is experiencing financial or other operational problems, it may have more difficulty serving an expanded field of membership.
Occasionally, however, an expanded field of membership may provide the basis for reversing current financial problems. In such cases, an amendment to expand the field of membership may be granted notwithstanding the credit union's financial or operational problems. The applicant credit union must clearly establish that the expanded field of membership is in the best interest of the members and will not increase the risk to the NCUSIF.
If the requested amendment is approved by NCUA, the credit union will be issued an amendment to Section 5 of its charter.
When NCUA disapproves any application to amend the field of membership, in whole or in part, under this chapter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• If appropriate, options or suggestions that could be considered for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedures.
If a field of membership expansion request, merger, or spin-off is denied by staff, the federal credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial and must be clearly identified as such and address the specific reason(s) the federal credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the office rendering the initial decision for reconsideration. A reconsideration will contain new and material evidence addressing the reasons for the initial denial. The office rendering the initial decision will have 30 days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the request is again denied, the applicant may proceed with the appeal process within 60 days of the date of the last denial. A second request for reconsideration will be treated as an appeal to the NCUA Board.
There are three additional ways a community federal credit union can expand its field of membership:
• By taking in the field of membership of another credit union through a merger;
• By taking in the field of membership through a purchase and assumption (P&A); or
• By taking a portion of another credit union's field of membership through a spin-off.
Generally, the requirements applicable to field of membership expansions apply to mergers where the continuing credit union is a community federal charter.
Where both credit unions are community charters, the continuing credit union must meet the criteria for expanding the community boundaries. A community credit union cannot merge into a single occupational/associational, or multiple common bond credit union, except in an emergency merger. However, a single occupational or associational, or multiple common bond credit union can merge into a community charter as long as the merging credit union has a service facility within the community boundaries or a majority of the merging credit union's field of membership would qualify for membership in the community charter. While a community charter may take in an occupational, associational, or multiple common bond credit union in a merger, it will remain a community charter.
Groups within the merging credit union's field of membership located outside of the community boundaries may not continue to be served. The merging credit union must notify groups that will be removed from the field of membership as a result of the merger. However, the credit union may continue to serve members of record.
Where a state-chartered credit union is merging into a community federal credit union, the continuing federal credit union's field of membership will be worded in accordance with NCUA policy. Any subsequent field of membership expansions must comply with applicable amendment procedures.
Mergers must be approved by the NCUA regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union, and, as applicable, the state regulators.
An emergency merger may be approved by NCUA without regard to common bond or other legal constraints. An emergency merger involves NCUA's direct intervention and approval. The credit union to be merged must either be insolvent or in danger of insolvency, as defined in the Glossary, and NCUA must determine that:
• An emergency requiring expeditious action exists;
• Other alternatives are not reasonably available; and
• The public interest would best be served by approving the merger.
If not corrected, conditions that could lead to insolvency include, but are not limited to:
• Abandonment by management;
• Loss of sponsor;
• Serious and persistent record-keeping problems; or
• Serious and persistent operational concerns.
In an emergency merger situation, NCUA will take an active role in finding a suitable merger partner (continuing credit union). NCUA is primarily concerned that the continuing credit union has the financial strength and management expertise to absorb the troubled credit union without adversely affecting its own financial condition and stability.
As a stipulated condition to an emergency merger, the field of membership of the merging credit union may be transferred intact to the continuing federal credit union without regard to any field of membership restrictions, including the service facility requirement. Under this authority, a federal credit union may take in any dissimilar field of membership.
Even though the merging credit union is a single common bond credit union or multiple common bond credit union or community credit union, the continuing credit union will remain a community charter. Future community expansions will be based on the continuing credit union's original community area.
Emergency mergers involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the merging credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
Another alternative for acquiring the field of membership of a failing credit union is through a consolidation known as a P&A. Generally, the requirements applicable to community expansions found in this chapter apply to purchase and assumptions where the purchasing credit union is a federal charter.
A P&A has limited application because, in most instances, the failing credit union must be placed into involuntary liquidation. However, in the few instances where a P&A may occur, the assuming federal credit union, as with emergency mergers, may acquire the entire field of membership if the emergency criteria are satisfied.
In a P&A processed under the emergency criteria, specified loans, shares, and certain other designated assets and liabilities may also be acquired without regard to field of membership restrictions and without changing the character of the continuing federal credit union for purposes of future field of membership amendments.
If the P&A does not meet the emergency criteria, then only members of record can be obtained unless they otherwise qualify for membership in the community charter.
P&As involving federally insured credit unions in different NCUA regions must be approved by the regional director where the continuing credit union is headquartered, with the concurrence of the regional director of the purchased and/or assumed credit union and, as applicable, the state regulators.
A spin-off occurs when, by agreement of the parties, a portion of the field of membership, assets, liabilities, shares, and capital of a credit union are transferred to a new or existing credit union. A spin-off is unique in that usually one credit union has a field of membership expansion and the other loses a portion of its field of membership.
All field of membership requirements apply regardless of whether the spun-off group goes to a new or existing federal charter.
The request for approval of a spin-off must be supported with a plan that addresses, at a minimum:
• Why the spin-off is being requested;
• What part of the field of membership is to be spun off;
• Whether the field of membership requirements are met;
• Which assets, liabilities, shares, and capital are to be transferred;
• The financial impact the spin-off will have on the affected credit unions;
• The ability of the acquiring credit union to effectively serve the new members;
• The proposed spin-off date; and
• Disclosure to the members of the requirements set forth above.
The spin-off request must also include current financial statements from the affected credit unions and the proposed voting ballot.
For federal credit unions spinning off a portion of the community, membership notice and voting requirements and procedures are the same as for mergers (see part 708 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations), except that only the members directly affected by the spin-off—those whose shares are to be transferred—are permitted to vote. Members whose shares are not being transferred will not be afforded the opportunity to vote. All members of the group to be spun off (whether they voted in favor, against, or not at all) will be transferred if the spin-off is approved by the voting membership. Voting requirements for federally insured state credit unions are governed by state law.
Generally, an overlap exists when a group of persons is eligible for membership in two or more credit unions. NCUA will permit community credit unions to overlap any other charters without performing an overlap analysis.
An exclusionary clause is a limitation precluding the credit union from serving the primary members of a portion of a group or community otherwise included in its field of membership. NCUA no longer grants exclusionary clauses. Those granted prior to the adoption of this new Chartering and Field of Membership Manual will remain in effect unless the credit unions agree to remove them or one of the affected credit unions submits a housekeeping amendment to have it removed.
A community federal credit union may convert to a single occupational or associational, or multiple common bond credit union. The converting credit union must meet all occupational, associational, and multiple common bond requirements, as applicable. The converting credit union may continue to serve members of record of the prior field of membership as of the date of the conversion, and any groups or communities obtained in an emergency merger or P&A. A change to the credit union's field of membership and designated common bond will be necessary.
A community credit union may convert to serve a new geographical area provided the field of membership requirements of V.A.3 of this chapter are met. Members of record of the original community can continue to be served.
A number of persons who have a close relationship to the community may be included, at the charter applicant's option, in the field of membership. These include the following:
• Spouses of persons who died while within the field of membership of this credit union;
• Employees of this credit union;
• Volunteers in the community;
• Members of the immediate family or household; and
• Organizations of such persons
Immediate family is defined as spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. This includes stepparents, stepchildren, stepsiblings, and adoptive relationships.
Household is defined as persons living in the same residence maintaining a single economic unit.
Membership eligibility is extended only to individuals who are members of an “immediate family or household” of a credit union member. It is not necessary for the primary member to join the credit union in order for the immediate family or household member of the primary member to join, provided the immediate family or household clause is included in the field of membership. However, it is necessary for the immediate family member or household member to first join in order for that person's immediate family member or household member to join the credit union. A credit union can adopt a more restrictive definition of immediate family or household.
Under the Federal Credit Union Act, once a person becomes a member of the credit union, such person may remain a member of the credit union until the person chooses to withdraw or is expelled from the membership of the credit union. This is commonly referred to as “once a member, always a member.” The “once a member, always a member” provision does not prevent a credit union from restricting services to members who are no longer within the field of membership.
One of the primary reasons for the creation of federal credit unions is to make credit available to people of modest means for provident and productive purposes. To help NCUA fulfill this mission, the agency has established special operational policies for federal credit unions that serve low-income groups and underserved areas. The policies provide a greater degree of flexibility that will enhance and invigorate capital infusion into low-income groups, low-income communities, and underserved areas. These unique policies are necessary to provide credit unions serving low-income groups with financial stability and potential for controlled growth and to encourage the formation of new charters as well as the delivery of credit union services in low-income communities.
A credit union serving predominantly low-income members may be designated as a low-income credit union. Section 701.34 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations defines the term “low-income members” as those members:
• Who make less than 80 percent of the average for all wage earners as established by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; or
• Whose median family income falls at or below 80 percent of the median family income for the nation as established by the Census Bureau.
The term “low-income members” also includes members who are full-time or part-time students in a college, university, high school, or vocational school.
To obtain a low-income designation from NCUA, an existing credit union must establish that a majority of its members meet the low-income definition. An existing community credit union that serves a geographic area where a majority of residents meet the annual income standard is presumed to be serving predominantly low-income members. A low-income designation for a new credit union charter may be based on a majority of the potential membership.
A credit union with a low-income designation has greater flexibility in accepting nonmember deposits insured by the NCUSIF, are exempt from the aggregate loan limit on business loans, and may offer secondary capital accounts to strengthen its capital base. It also may participate in special funding programs such as the Community Development Revolving Loan Program for Credit Unions (CDRLP) if it is involved in the stimulation of economic development and community revitalization efforts.
The CDRLP provides both loans and grants for technical assistance to low-income credit unions. The requirements for participation in the revolving loan program are in part 705 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations. Only operating credit unions are eligible for participation in this program.
A federal credit union charter applicant or existing credit union wishing to receive a low-income designation should forward a separate request for the designation to the Office of Consumer Protection Director, along with appropriate documentation supporting the request.
For community charter applicants, the supporting material should include the median family income or annual wage figures for the community to be served. If this information is unavailable, the applicant should identify the individual zip codes or census tracts that comprise the community and NCUA will assist in obtaining the necessary demographic data.
Similarly, if single occupational or associational or multiple common bond charter applicants cannot supply income data on its potential members, they should provide the Office of Consumer Protection Director with a list which includes the number of potential members, sorted by their residential zip codes, and NCUA will assist in obtaining the necessary demographic data.
An existing credit union can perform a loan or membership survey to determine if the credit union is primarily serving low-income members.
A low-income federal credit union charter applicant may contract with a third party to assist in the chartering and low-income designation process. If the charter is granted, a low-income credit union may contract with a third party to provide necessary management services. Such contracts should not exceed the duration of one year subject to renewal.
In recognition of the unique efforts needed to help make credit union service available to low-income groups, NCUA has adopted special rules that pertain to low-income credit union charters, as well as field of membership additions for low-income credit unions. These special rules provide additional latitude to enable underserved, low-income individuals to gain access to credit union service.
NCUA permits credit union chartering and field of membership amendments based on
A low-income designated community federal credit union has additional latitude in serving persons who are affiliated with the community. In addition to serving members who live, work, worship, or attend school in the community, a low-income community federal credit union may also serve persons who participate in programs to alleviate poverty or distress, or who participate in associations headquartered in the community.
Examples of a low-income designated community and an associational-based low-income federal credit union are as follows:
• Persons who live in [the target area]; persons who work, worship, attend school, or participate in associations headquartered in [the target area]; persons participating in programs to alleviate poverty or distress which are located in [the target area]; incorporated and unincorporated organizations located in [the target area] or maintaining a facility in [the target area]; and organizations of such persons.
• Members of the Canarsie Economic Assistance League, in Brooklyn, NY, an association whose members all meet the low-income definition of § 701.34 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations.
A multiple common bond federal credit union may include in its field of membership, without regard to location, an “underserved area” as defined by the Federal Credit Union Act. 12 U.S.C. 1759(c)(2). The addition of an “underserved area” will not change the charter type of the multiple common bond federal credit union. More than one multiple common-bond federal credit union can serve the same “underserved area,” provided each credit union is approved as provided below.
By adding an “underserved area,” a multiple common bond federal credit union does not become eligible to receive the benefits afforded to low-income designated credit unions, such as expanded use of nonmember deposits and access to the Community Development Revolving Loan Program for Credit Unions.
The Federal Credit Union Act defines an “underserved area” as (1) a “local community, neighborhood, or rural district” that (2) meets the definition of an “investment area” under section 103(16) of the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (“CDFI”), 12 U.S.C. 4702(16), and (3) is “underserved by other depository institutions” based on data of the NCUA Board and the federal banking agencies.
To be eligible for approval as “underserved,” a proposed area must be a well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district as defined in Chapter 2, sections V.A.1. and V.A.2. of this manual.
To be approved as an “underserved area,” the proposed area must meet the CDFI definition of an “investment area.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
III.B.2.b—Proposed Area's “Significant Unmet Needs”
A proposed area that is “distressed” also must display “significant unmet needs” for
III.B.3—Underserved by Other Depository Institutions
A proposed area that meets the CDFI definition of an “investment area” (
Without regard to a proposed area's location within or outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area, this criterion compares two ratios: The ratio of facilities to the population of the non-“distressed” tracts (the benchmark) versus the same facilities-to-population ratio among all the tracts of the proposed area as a whole. If the benchmark ratio is greater than the ratio for the whole area, then the area is “underserved by other depository institutions,” and vice versa.
When, as the result of an initial Concentration of Facilities ratio calculation, a proposed area does not qualify as “underserved by other depository institutions,” NCUA will exclude non-depository banks (
As one alternative to the concentration of facilities ratio, a proposed area will qualify as “underserved by other depository institutions” if it is designated an “underserved county” by NCUA based on data produced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (available at:
As another alternative to the concentration of facilities ratio, a proposed area will qualify as “underserved by other depository institutions” if the credit seeking to serve it, using a metric of its own choosing that is based on NCUA or other Federal banking agency data, establishes to NCUA's satisfaction that the proposed area is “underserved by other depository institutions.”
If NCUA approves the request to add an “underserved area,” the credit union will be issued an amendment to Section 5 of its charter.
Once a credit union is initially approved to serve an “underserved area,” other credit unions that subsequently apply may be approved to serve the same area. To be approved, the area must qualify as “underserved” at the time the new applicant applies. An applicant must demonstrate the area continues to be “distressed”, as provided above, only if a new decennial Census has been published since the date the area was last approved. In any case, the applicant must demonstrate that the area still has “significant unmet needs” for loans or credit union services (to qualify as an “investment area”), and remains “underserved by other depository institutions” (to qualify as “underserved”).
A federal credit union that desires to include an underserved community in its field of membership must first develop, and submit for approval, a business plan specifying how it will serve the community. In addition, the business plan must include a SUN section as provided in Section III.B.2.b. above. The credit union will be expected to regularly review the business plan to determine if the community is being adequately served. The Office of Consumer Protection Director may require periodic service status reports from a credit union about the “underserved area” to ensure that the needs of the community are being met, and must require such reports before NCUA allows a multiple common bond federal credit union to add an additional “underserved area.”
Once an “underserved area” has been added to a federal credit union's field of membership, the credit union must establish within two years, and maintain, an office or service facility in the community. A service facility is defined as a place where shares are accepted for members' accounts, loan applications are accepted and loans are disbursed. By definition, a service facility includes a credit union-owned branch, a shared branch, a mobile branch, or an office operated on a regularly scheduled weekly basis or a credit union owned electronic facility that meets, at a minimum, the above requirements. This definition does not include an ATM or the credit union's Internet Web site.
When NCUA disapproves any application to add an “underserved area” in whole or in part, under this chapter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• Options to consider, if appropriate, for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedures.
If the Office of Consumer Protection Director denies an “underserved area” request, the federal credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial. The appeal must be clearly identified as such and address the specific reason(s) the federal credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal to the NCUA Board with a recommendation.
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the Office of Consumer Protection Director for reconsideration. A reconsideration will contain new and material evidence addressing the reasons for the initial denial. The Office of Consumer Protection Director will have 30 days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the request is again denied, the applicant may proceed with the appeal process within 60 days of the date of the last denial. A second request for reconsideration will be treated as an appeal to the NCUA Board.
A charter conversion is a change in the jurisdictional authority under which a credit union operates.
Federal credit unions receive their charters from NCUA and are subject to its supervision, examination, and regulation.
State-chartered credit unions are incorporated in a particular state, receiving their charter from the state agency responsible for credit unions and subject to the state's regulator. If the state-chartered credit union's deposits are federally insured, it will also fall under NCUA's jurisdiction.
A federal credit union's power and authority are derived from the Federal Credit
There are two types of charter conversions: Federal charter to state charter and state charter to federal charter. Common bond and community requirements are not an issue from NCUA's standpoint in the case of a federal to state charter conversion. The procedures and forms relevant to both types of charter conversion are included in appendix 4 of this manual.
Any state-chartered credit union may apply to convert to a federal credit union. In order to do so it must:
• Comply with state law regarding conversion and file proof of compliance with NCUA;
• File the required conversion application, proposed federal credit union organization certificate, and other documents with NCUA;
• Comply with the requirements of the Federal Credit Union Act,
• Be granted federal share insurance by NCUA.
Conversions are treated the same as any initial application for a federal charter, including an on-site examination by NCUA where appropriate. NCUA will also consult with the appropriate state authority regarding the credit union's current financial condition, management expertise, and past performance. Since the applicant in a conversion is an ongoing credit union, the economic advisability of granting a charter is more readily determinable than in the case of an initial charter applicant.
A converting state credit union's field of membership must conform to NCUA's chartering policy. The field of membership will be phrased in accordance with NCUA chartering policy. However, if the converting credit union is a multiple group charter and the new federal charter is a multiple group, then the new federal charter may retain in its field of membership any group that the state credit union was serving at the time of conversion. Subsequent changes must conform to NCUA chartering policy in effect at that time.
If the converting credit union is a community charter and the new federal charter is community-based, it must meet the community field of membership requirements set forth in Chapter 2, Section V of this manual. If the state-chartered credit union's community boundary is more expansive than the approved federal boundary, only members of record outside of the new community boundary may continue to be served.
The converting credit union, regardless of charter type, may continue to serve members of record. The converting credit union may retain in its field of membership any group or community added pursuant to state emergency provisions.
The following documents must be submitted with the conversion proposal:
• Conversion of State Charter to Federal Charter (NCUA 4000);
• Organization Certificate (NCUA 4008). Only Part (3) and the signature/notary section should be completed and, where applicable, signed by the credit union officials.
• Report of Officials and Agreement to Serve (NCUA 4012);
• The Application to Convert From State Credit Union to Federal Credit Union (NCUA 4401);
• The Application and Agreements for Insurance of Accounts (NCUA 9500);
• Certification of Resolution (NCUA 9501);
• Written evidence regarding whether the state regulator is in agreement with the conversion proposal; and
• Business plan, as appropriate, including the most current financial report and delinquent loan schedule.
If the state charter is applying to become a federal community charter, it must also comply with the documentation requirements included in Chapter 2, Section V.A.2 of this manual.
The application will be reviewed to determine that it is complete and that the proposal is in compliance with Section 125 of the Federal Credit Union Act. This review will include a determination that the state credit union's field of membership is in compliance with NCUA's chartering policies. The Office of Consumer Protection Director may make further investigation into the proposal and may require the submission of additional information to support the request to convert.
NCUA may conduct an on-site examination of the books and records of the credit union. Non-federally insured credit unions will be assessed an insurance application fee.
The conversion will be approved by the Office of Consumer Protection Director if it is in compliance with Section 125 of the Federal Credit Union Act and meets the criteria for federal insurance. Where applicable, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will specify any special conditions that the credit union must meet in order to convert to a federal charter, including changes to the credit union's field of membership in order to conform to NCUA's chartering policies. Some of these conditions may be set forth in a Letter of Understanding and Agreement (LUA), which requires the signature of the officials and the appropriate NCUA regional director.
The Office of Consumer Protection Director will notify both the credit union and the state regulator of the decision on the conversion.
When NCUA disapproves any application to convert to a federal charter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• Options to consider, if appropriate, for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedures.
If a conversion to a federal charter is denied by the Office of Consumer Protection Director, the applicant credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial. The appeal must be clearly identified as such and address the specific reason(s) the credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal to the NCUA Board with a recommendation.
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the Office of Consumer Protection Director for reconsideration. The request will not be considered as an appeal, but a request for reconsideration by the Office of Consumer Protection Director. The Office of Consumer Protection Director will have 30 business days from the date of the receipt of the request for reconsideration to make a final decision. If the application is again denied, the credit union may proceed with the appeal process to the NCUA Board within 60 days of the date of the last denial by the Office of Consumer Protection Director.
Upon being informed of the Office of Consumer Protection Director's preliminary approval, the board must:
• Comply with all requirements of the state regulator that will enable the credit union to convert to a federal charter and cease being a state credit union;
• Obtain a letter or official statement from the state regulator certifying that the credit union has met all of the state requirements and will cease to be a state credit union upon its receiving a federal charter. A copy of this document must be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director;
• Obtain a letter from the private share insurer (includes excess share insurers), if applicable, certifying that the credit union has met all withdrawal requirements. A copy of this document must be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director; and
• Submit a statement of the action taken to comply with any conditions imposed by the Office of Consumer Protection Director in the preliminary approval of the conversion proposal and, if applicable, submit the signed LUA.
When the Office of Consumer Protection Director has received evidence that the board of directors has satisfactorily completed the actions described above, the federal charter
The credit union may then complete the conversion as discussed in the following section. A denial of a conversion application can be appealed. Refer to Section II.C.6 of this chapter.
The date on which the Office of Consumer Protection Director approves the Organization Certificate and the Application and Agreements for Insurance of Accounts is the date on which the credit union becomes a federal credit union. The Office of Consumer Protection Director will notify the credit union and the state regulator of the date of the conversion.
As of the effective date of the conversion, the federal credit union will be the owner of all of the assets and will be responsible for all of the liabilities and share accounts of the state credit union.
Upon receipt of its federal charter, the board will hold its first meeting as a federal credit union. At this meeting, the board will transact such business as is necessary to complete the conversion as approved and to operate the credit union in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Credit Union Act and NCUA Rules and Regulations.
As of the commencement of operations, the accounting system, records, and forms must conform to the standards established by NCUA.
Changing of the credit union's name on all signage, records, accounts, investments, and other documents should be accomplished as soon as possible after conversion. The credit union has 180 days from the effective date of the conversion to change its signage and promotional material. This requires the credit union to discontinue using any remaining stock of “state credit union” stationery immediately, and discontinue using credit cards, ATM cards, etc., within 180 days after the effective date of the conversion, or the reissue date whichever is later. The Office of Consumer Protection Director has the discretion to extend the timeframe for an additional 180 days. Member share drafts with the state-chartered name can be used by the members until depleted.
Within 10 business days after commencement of operations, the recently converted federal credit union must submit to the Office of Consumer Protection Director the following:
• Report of Officials (NCUA 4501); and
• Financial and Statistical Reports, as of the commencement of business of the federal credit union.
Any federal credit union may apply to convert to a state credit union. In order to do so, it must:
• Notify NCUA prior to commencing the process to convert to a state charter and state the reason(s) for the conversion;
• Comply with the requirements of Section 125 of the Federal Credit Union Act that enable it to convert to a state credit union and to cease being a federal credit union; and
• Comply with applicable state law and the requirements of the state regulator.
It is important that the credit union provide an accurate disclosure of the reasons for the conversion. These reasons should be stated in specific terms, not as generalities. The federal credit union converting to a state charter remains responsible for the entire operating fee for the year in which it converts.
If the federal credit union intends to continue federal share insurance after the conversion to a state credit union, it must submit an Application for Insurance of Accounts (NCUA 9600) to the Office of Consumer Protection Director at the time it requests approval of the conversion proposal. The Office of Consumer Protection Director has the authority to approve or disapprove the application.
If the converting federal credit union does not intend to continue federal share insurance or if its application for continued insurance is denied, insurance will cease in accordance with the provisions of Section 206 of the Federal Credit Union Act.
If, upon its conversion to a state credit union, the federal credit union will be terminating its federal share insurance or converting from federal to non-federal share insurance, it must comply with the membership notice and voting procedures set forth in Section 206 of the Federal Credit Union Act and part 708 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, and address the criteria set forth in Section 205(c) of the Federal Credit Union Act.
Where the state credit union will be non-federally insured, federal insurance ceases on the effective date of the charter conversion. If it will be otherwise uninsured, then federal insurance will cease one year after the date of conversion subject to the restrictions in Section 206(d)(1) of the Federal Credit Union Act. In either case, the state credit union will be entitled to a refund of the federal credit union's NCUSIF capitalization deposit after the final date on which any of its shares are federally insured.
The NCUA Board reserves the right to delay the refund of the capitalization deposit for up to one year if it determines that payment would jeopardize the NCUSIF.
Upon approval of a proposition for conversion by a majority vote of the board of directors at a meeting held in accordance with the federal credit union's bylaws, the conversion proposal will be submitted to the Office of Consumer Protection Director and will include:
• A current financial report;
• A current delinquent loan schedule;
• An explanation and appropriate documents relative to any changes in insurance of member accounts;
• A resolution of the board of directors;
• A proposed Notice of Special Meeting of the Members (NCUA 4221);
• A copy of the ballot to be sent to all members (NCUA 4506);
• If the credit union intends to continue with federal share insurance, an application for insurance of accounts (NCUA 9600);
• Evidence that the state regulator is in agreement with the conversion proposal; and
• A statement of reasons supporting the request to convert.
The proposal will be reviewed to determine that it is complete and is in compliance with Section 125 of the Federal Credit Union Act. The Office of Consumer Protection Director may make further investigation into the proposal and require the submission of additional information to support the request.
The Office of Consumer Protection Director will specify any special conditions that the credit union must meet in order to proceed with the conversion.
The proposal will be approved by the Office of Consumer Protection Director if it is in compliance with Section 125 and, in the case where the state credit union will no longer be federally insured, the notice and voting requirements of Section 206 of the Federal Credit Union Act.
The Office of Consumer Protection Director will notify both the credit union and the state regulator of the decision on the proposal.
When NCUA disapproves any application to convert to a state charter, the applicant will be informed in writing of the:
• Specific reasons for the action;
• If appropriate, options or suggestions that could be considered for gaining approval; and
• Appeal procedures.
If the Office of Consumer Protection Director denies a conversion to a state charter, the federal credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. An appeal must be sent to the NCUA Board Secretary within 60 days of the date of denial. The appeal must be clearly identified as such and address the specific reason(s) the federal credit union disagrees with the denial. A copy of the appeal must be sent to the Office of Consumer Protection. NCUA central office staff will make an independent review of the facts and present the appeal to the NCUA Board with a recommendation.
Before appealing, the credit union may, within 30 days of the denial, provide supplemental information to the Office of
The members may not vote on the proposal until it is approved by the Office of Consumer Protection Director. Once approval of the proposal is received, the following actions will be taken by the board of directors:
• The proposal must be submitted to the members for approval and a date set for a meeting to vote on the proposal. The proposal may be acted on at the annual meeting or at a special meeting for that purpose. The members must also be given the opportunity to vote by written ballot to be filed by the date set for the meeting.
• Members must be given advance notice (NCUA 4221) of the meeting at which the proposal is to be submitted. The notice must:
• Specify the purpose, time and place of the meeting;
• Include a brief, complete, and accurate statement of the reasons for and against the proposed conversion, including any effects it could have upon share holdings, insurance of member accounts, and the policies and practices of the credit union;
• Specify the costs of the conversion,
• Inform the members that they have the right to vote on the proposal at the meeting, or by written ballot to be filed not later than the date and time announced for the annual meeting, or at the special meeting called for that purpose;
• Be accompanied by a Federal to State Conversion—Ballot for Conversion Proposal (NCUA 4506); and
• State in bold face type that the issue will be decided by a majority of members who vote.
• The proposed conversion must be approved by a majority of all of the members who vote on the proposal, a quorum being present, in order for the credit union to proceed further with the proposition, provided federal insurance is maintained. If the proposed state-chartered credit union will not be federally insured, 20 percent of the total membership must participate in the voting, and of those, a majority must vote in favor of the proposal. Ballots cast by members who did not attend the meeting but who submitted their ballots in accordance with instructions above will be counted with votes cast at the meeting. In order to have a suitable record of the vote, the voting at the meeting should be by written ballot as well.
• The board of directors shall, within 10 days, certify the results of the membership vote to the Office of Consumer Protection Director. The statement shall be verified by affidavits of the Chief Executive Officer and the Recording Officer on NCUA 4505.
If the proposal for conversion is approved by a majority of all members who voted, the board of directors will:
• Ensure that all requirements of state law and the state regulator have been accommodated;
• Ensure that the state charter or the license has been received within 90 days from the date the members approved the proposal to convert; and
• Ensure that the Office of Consumer Protection Director is kept informed as to progress toward conversion and of any material delay or of substantial difficulties which may be encountered.
If the conversion cannot be completed within the 90-day period, the Office of Consumer Protection Director should be informed of the reasons for the delay. The Office of Consumer Protection Director may set a new date for the conversion to be completed.
In order for the conversion to be completed, the following steps are necessary:
• The board of directors will submit a copy of the state charter to the Office of Consumer Protection Director within 10 days of its receipt. This will be accompanied by the federal charter and the federal insurance certificate. A copy of the financial reports as of the preceding month-end should be submitted at this time.
• The Office of Consumer Protection Director will notify the credit union and the state regulator in writing of the receipt of evidence that the credit union has been authorized to operate as a state credit union.
• The credit union shall cease to be a federal credit union as of the effective date of the state charter.
• If the Office of Consumer Protection Director finds a material deviation from the provisions that would invalidate any steps taken in the conversion, the credit union and the state regulator shall be promptly notified in writing. This notice may be either before or after the copy of the state charter is filed with the Office of Consumer Protection Director. The notice will inform the credit union as to the nature of the adverse findings. The conversion will not be effective and completed until the improper actions and steps have been corrected.
• Upon ceasing to be a federal credit union, the credit union shall no longer be subject to any of the provisions of the Federal Credit Union Act, except as may apply if federal share insurance coverage is continued. The successor state credit union shall be immediately vested with all of the assets and shall continue to be responsible for all of the obligations of the federal credit union to the same extent as though the conversion had not taken place. Operation of the credit union from this point will be in accordance with the requirements of state law and the state regulator.
• If the Office of Consumer Protection Director is satisfied that the conversion has been accomplished in accordance with the approved proposal, the federal charter will be canceled.
• There is no federal requirement for closing the records of the federal credit union at the time of conversion or for the manner in which the records shall be maintained thereafter. The converting credit union is advised to contact the state regulator for applicable state requirements.
• The credit union shall neither use the words “Federal Credit Union” in its name nor represent itself in any manner as being a federal credit union.
• Changing of the credit union's name on all signage, records, accounts, investments, and other documents should be accomplished as soon as possible after conversion. Unless it violates state law, the credit union has 180 days from the effective date of the conversion to change its signage and promotional material. This requires the credit union to discontinue using any remaining stock of “federal credit union” stationery immediately, and discontinue using credit cards, ATM cards, etc., within 180 days after the effective date of the conversion, or the reissue date, whichever is later. The Office of Consumer Protection Director has the discretion to extend the timeframe for an additional 180 days. Member share drafts with the federal chartered name can be used by the members until depleted. If the state credit union is not federally insured, it must change its name and must immediately cease using any credit union documents referencing federal insurance.
• If the state credit union is to be federally insured, the Office of Consumer Protection Director will issue a new insurance certificate.
These definitions apply only for use with this manual. Definitions are not intended to be all inclusive or comprehensive. This manual, the Federal Credit Union Act, and NCUA Rules and Regulations, as well as state laws, may be used for further reference.
1. The credit union's net worth is declining at a rate that will render it insolvent within 24 months. In projecting future net worth, NCUA may rely on data in addition to Call Report data. The trend must be supported by at least 12 months of historic data.
2. The credit union's net worth is declining at a rate that will take it under two percent (2%) net worth within 12 months. In projecting future net worth, NCUA may rely on data in addition to Call Report data. The trend must be supported by at least 12 months of historic data.
3. The credit union's net worth, as self-reported on its Call Report, is significantly undercapitalized, and NCUA determines that there is no reasonable prospect of the credit union becoming adequately capitalized in the succeeding 36 months. In making its determination on the prospect of achieving adequate capitalization, NCUA will assume that, if adverse economic conditions are affecting the value of the credit union's assets and liabilities, including property values and loan delinquencies related to unemployment, these adverse conditions will not further deteriorate.
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 |