Page Range | 77567-78115 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 77591 - Petition Requesting Rulemaking on Products Containing Organohalogen Flame Retardants; Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation of Comments | |
80 FR 77697 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA-801; Aircraft Registration Records System of Records Notice | |
80 FR 77647 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; The Impact of Clinical Research Training and Medical Education at the Clinical Center on Physician Careers in Academia and Clinical Research (CC) | |
80 FR 77567 - Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act | |
80 FR 77620 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 77688 - In The Matter of Oxford City Football Club, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
80 FR 77678 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 77569 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits | |
80 FR 77589 - Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedure for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Notice of Data Availability; Request for Information | |
80 FR 77655 - HEARTH Act Approval of Gila River Indian Community Regulations | |
80 FR 77605 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
80 FR 77603 - Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision | |
80 FR 77691 - In the Matter of the Designation of Emrah Erdogan aka Salahuddin al-Kurdi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended | |
80 FR 77650 - American Samoa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
80 FR 77648 - Texas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
80 FR 77646 - Request for Public Comment: 30-Day Proposed Information Collection: Indian Health Service (IHS) Sharing What Works-Best Practice, Promising Practice, and Local Effort (BPPPLE) Form | |
80 FR 77649 - Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy | |
80 FR 77672 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
80 FR 77691 - Privacy Act; System of Records: Security Records, State-36. | |
80 FR 77672 - State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory Committee (SLTPS-PAC) Meeting | |
80 FR 77657 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection | |
80 FR 77626 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for October 2015 | |
80 FR 77617 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019 | |
80 FR 77606 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program Standard Ex-Vessel Prices | |
80 FR 77614 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
80 FR 77617 - Funding Additional Awards; Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Program | |
80 FR 77592 - Proposed Scope of NTIA's Authority Regarding FirstNet Fees | |
80 FR 77706 - Proposed Information Collection (The Veterans Metrics Initiative: Linking Program Components to Post-Military Well-Being) | |
80 FR 77665 - Notice of Charter Establishment | |
80 FR 77697 - Michael Williams-Control Exemption-SDR Holding Company | |
80 FR 77615 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0031, Procurement Contracts | |
80 FR 77653 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Contractor's Requisition-Project Mortgages | |
80 FR 77654 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Rural Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing NOFA | |
80 FR 77651 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Choice Voucher Program | |
80 FR 77653 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Statutorily-Mandated Collection of Information for Tenants in LIHTC Properties | |
80 FR 77694 - Procurement Thresholds for Implementation of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 | |
80 FR 77614 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Region Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Economic Data Reports (EDR) | |
80 FR 77605 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 77661 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Semi-Annual Progress Report for Justice for Families Program | |
80 FR 77667 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77664 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77662 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77569 - Notice of Delay of Discharge Requirements for U.S. Coast Guard Activities in Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries; Correction | |
80 FR 77660 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence | |
80 FR 77631 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection Revision; Comment Request (3064-0189) | |
80 FR 77633 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
80 FR 77633 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
80 FR 77570 - Safety Zone, Great Egg Harbor Bay; Somers Point, NJ | |
80 FR 77573 - Safety Zone, Delaware River; Marcus Hook, PA | |
80 FR 77674 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 77634 - Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Notification of Upcoming Conference Calls | |
80 FR 77616 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; The Secretary of the Department of Education's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, and the Comparability of Medical and Veterinary Medical Programs | |
80 FR 77630 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0046, 3064-0113, & 3064-0178) | |
80 FR 77629 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10326, Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona | |
80 FR 77588 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 2015-2016 Accountability Measure and Closure for Commercial King Mackerel in the Florida West Coast Northern Subzone; Correction | |
80 FR 77618 - Powder River Crude Services, LLC; Powder River Express, LLC; Notice of Petiton for Declaratory Order | |
80 FR 77623 - Chicap Pipe Line Company; Notice Of Petiton For Declaratory Order | |
80 FR 77624 - Buckeye Pipe Line Transportation, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
80 FR 77618 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
80 FR 77619 - Notice of Conference | |
80 FR 77621 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southwest Louisiana Supply Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
80 FR 77663 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision to a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77666 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision to a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77661 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision to a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77664 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision to a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77667 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision to a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 77619 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Triad Expansion Project | |
80 FR 77623 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 77625 - Notification of Two Teleconferences and a Face-to-Face Meeting of the Science Advisory Board Economy-Wide Modeling Panel | |
80 FR 77585 - RESTORE Act-Initial Funded Priorities List | |
80 FR 77591 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for 2015 Control Periods | |
80 FR 77578 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Interstate Transport of Ozone | |
80 FR 77601 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems | |
80 FR 77600 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling | |
80 FR 77703 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 77704 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2003-48 | |
80 FR 77702 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8038-CP | |
80 FR 77674 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 77703 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 4626 | |
80 FR 77700 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
80 FR 77674 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 77705 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
80 FR 77702 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2003-38 | |
80 FR 77674 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 77701 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8905 | |
80 FR 77656 - Renewal of Information Collection for: OMB Control Number-1093-0005-Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, Statement of Federal Lands Payments, (43 CFR 44) | |
80 FR 77704 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 944, Form 944(SP), Form 944-X, Form 944-X (SP), and 944-X (PR). | |
80 FR 77683 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc. | |
80 FR 77675 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc. | |
80 FR 77680 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 123C-Equities To Define the Term “Official Closing Price” | |
80 FR 77684 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to NYSE MKT Trades Market Data Product Offering | |
80 FR 77676 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to NYSE Trades Market Data Product Offering | |
80 FR 77688 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 123C To Define the Term “Official Closing Price” | |
80 FR 77686 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 19.6, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading | |
80 FR 77678 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 19.6, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading | |
80 FR 77648 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Meetings | |
80 FR 77647 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
80 FR 77647 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
80 FR 77580 - RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component Allocation | |
80 FR 77672 - Notice of Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards; Correction | |
80 FR 77603 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 77668 - Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment | |
80 FR 77650 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Air Cargo Security Requirements | |
80 FR 77696 - Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (230) Airborne Weather Detection Systems | |
80 FR 77696 - Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (235) Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries | |
80 FR 77634 - Premarket Studies of Implantable Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
80 FR 77636 - Head Lice Infestation: Developing Drugs for Topical Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
80 FR 77645 - Use of Nucleic Acid Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
80 FR 77641 - Point of Care Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio Devices for Monitoring Warfarin Therapy; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
80 FR 77637 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug and Biological Products | |
80 FR 77640 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VIZAMYL | |
80 FR 77643 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAXIBACUMAB | |
80 FR 77638 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; Trivascular Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System | |
80 FR 77598 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish | |
80 FR 77658 - Notice of Extension of Concession Contracts | |
80 FR 77575 - Name Change From the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) | |
80 FR 77916 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Fall 2015 | |
80 FR 77998 - Department Regulatory Agenda; Semiannual Summary | |
80 FR 78018 - Semiannual Agenda and Fiscal Year 2015 Regulatory Plan | |
80 FR 77586 - Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records | |
80 FR 77710 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 77980 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78112 - Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
80 FR 78108 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 78104 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
80 FR 78066 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2015 | |
80 FR 78062 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78056 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78048 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78040 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78036 - Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78032 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 78024 - Fall 2015 Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 78020 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 77992 - Semiannual Agenda of Regulations | |
80 FR 77990 - Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 77984 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 77972 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 77960 - Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 77956 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
80 FR 77952 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 77948 - Improving Government Regulations; Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
80 FR 77928 - Fall 2015 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Information Security Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Final rule; delay of effectiveness for discharge requirements with regard to Coast Guard activities; correction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a document in the
Effective on December 15, 2015.
Maria Brown, Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Superintendent, at
In the
16 U.S.C. 1431
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in January 2016. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC. As discussed below, PBGC will publish a separate final rule document dealing with interest assumptions under its regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans for the first quarter of 2016.
Effective January 1, 2016.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for January 2016.
PBGC normally updates the assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for January at the same time as PBGC updates assumptions for the first quarter of the year under its regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) in a single rulemaking document. Because of delays in obtaining data used in setting assumptions under Part 4044 for the first quarter of 2016, PBGC is publishing two separate rulemaking documents to update the benefit payments regulation for January 2016 and the allocation regulation for the first quarter of 2016.
The January 2016 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for December 2015, these interest assumptions are unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during January 2016, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is extending the dates for a temporary safety zone on the waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay in the vicinity of the Garden State Parkway Bridge in Somers Point, NJ. Due to the severe weather felt in the Mid-Atlantic region in the past month the project has been delayed by a number of weeks and more time is needed to complete the critical repairs for the Garden State Parkway Bridge. The safety zone will continue to restrict vessel traffic on a portion of the Great Egg Harbor Bay while critical girder erection work is being conducted as part of the rehabilitation project of the main navigational channel section of the bridge. This extension of the temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the bridge construction operations.
This rule is effective without actual notice from December 15, 2015 through December 31, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from October 5, 2015 through December 15, 2015.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4851, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because this critical phase of the rehabilitation work to the Garden State Parkway Bridge, main channel section, poses a safety threat to maritime traffic and a safety zone is needed. Furthermore, the request for work to continue until December 31, 2015 was not received until November 12, 2015. Due to the need for an immediate response and the late notification of the work, providing a notice and comment period would be impractical.
We are issuing this rule, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge construction operations starting October 5, 2015, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of bridge work, vessels, and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge work is being conducted.
This rule establishes the continuation of a safety zone from October 5, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and the zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily, excluding Sundays. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of vessels and machinery, at approximate position, 39°17′32″ N., 074°37′32″ W., being used by personnel for construction and repair of the Garden State Parkway Bridge over the Great Egg Harbor Bay in Somers Point, NJ. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while bridge construction operations are being conducted. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the construction vessel per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR Subchapter E). During portions of this project the main navigation channel will be closed each day for vessel traffic from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., excluding Sundays. These closures are necessary for safety due to hazards associated with bridge maintenance. Bridge work will stop and the channel will be clear for vessels to pass under the bridge between 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday; during these hours when bridge work is stopped, mariners may transit the main channel without restrictions. In addition, the channel will be fully available on Sundays and vessels may transit freely. At all times, secondary bridge spans will be clear to pass; vessels able to pass under secondary channel spans may do so at any time. There will be number of working days that the navigation channel will not be obstructed; however, mariners wishing to transit Monday through Saturday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. must make passing arrangements with the on scene construction vessel or obtain permission from the COTP or his representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit from the hours of 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., daily, excluding Sundays. At other times, vessel master may request permission to transit the safety zone. There will be number of working days that the navigation channel will not be obstructed. At all times, secondary bridge spans will be clear to pass; vessels able to pass under secondary channel spans may do so at any time without requesting permission. This safety zone will impact a small designated area of the Great Egg Harbor Bay, in Somers Point, NJ for no more than an 11 hour period each day.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone in force for no more than 11 hours each day, from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, that prohibits entry within 200 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel conducting bridge work on the Garden State Parkway Bridge over the Great Egg Harbor Bay, in Somers Point, NJ. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2)
(c)
(1) During periods of full channel closures, the main navigational channel will be obstructed and vessels will be unable to pass. Secondary bridge spans will be clear to pass; vessels able to pass under secondary channel spans may do so.
(2) Vessels wishing to transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may do so if they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with the on-scene construction vessel in accordance with the Navigational Rules in 33 CFR Subchapter E. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing arrangements with the on-scene construction vessel, they may request permission from the COTP or his designated representative on VHF channel 16.
(3) There will be number of working days that the navigation channel will not be obstructed; however, mariners wishing to transit during the enforcement period must still comply with the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(4) The main channel will be clear from the hours of 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. daily, and every Sunday throughout the course of the project. Vessels may transit through the safety zone at these times without restriction.
(5) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations: enforcing laws; servicing aids to navigation, and emergency response vessels.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. The safety zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in a portion of the Delaware River while rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations are being conducted to facilitate the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project for the main navigational channel of the Delaware River. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representatives.
This rule is effective without actual notice from December 15, 2015 through March 15, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from December 4, 2015 through December 15, 2015.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4850, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impractical due to environmental restrictions which require all blasting operations to be conducted between December 15, 2015 to March 15, 2016. Furthermore, the final details of the rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operation were not received until October 28, 2015. Due to the criticality of this phase of the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project, immediate action is needed to accommodate operations while also ensuring vessels can safely transit through Marcus Hook Range in Delaware River during this time. Going forward without establishing a safety zone would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations.
For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, has determined that potential hazards associated with rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations starting December 04, 2015 will be a safety concern for anyone within 500 yards of rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the operational area.
This rule establishes a safety zone from December 15, 2004 until March 15, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the Delaware River within 500 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to conduct rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while operations are being conducted. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative. For the duration of the project, in the vicinity of the rock blasting, rock removal, and dredging operation, one side of the main navigational channel will be closed. Vessels wishing to transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may do so if they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with drill boat APACHE or the dredge TEXAS in accordance with the Navigational Rules in 33 CFR Subchapter E via VHF-FM Channel 13 at least 30 minutes prior to arrival. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the dredge TEXAS, they may request permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative, on VHF-FM channel 16. All vessels must operate at the minimum safe speed necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake.
No vessels may transit through the safety zone during times of explosives detonation. During rock blasting detonation vessels will be required to maintain a 500 yard distance from the drill boat APACHE. The drill boat APACHE will make broadcasts, via VHF-FM Channel 13 and 16, at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, and 1 minute prior to detonation, as well as a countdown to detonation on VHF-FM Channel 16. Sector Delaware Bay will ensure significant notice will be given to the maritime community of dates and times of blasting via broadcast notice to mariners on VHF-FM Channel 16. After every explosive detonation a survey will be conducted to ensure the navigational channel is clear for vessels to transit. The drill boat APACHE will broadcast, via VHF-FM channel 13 and 16, when the survey has been completed and the channel is clear to transit. Vessels requesting to transit through the safety zone shall proceed as directed by the designated representative of the Captain
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and traffic management of the safety zone. The Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact because the safety zone will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic, except for the short periods of time when explosive detonation evolutions are being conducted. The blasting detonations will not occur more than three times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit. Moreover, the Coast Guard will work in coordination with the pilots to ensure vessel traffic is limited during the times of detonation and Broadcast Notice to Mariners are made via VHF-FM marine channel 13 and 16 when blasting operations will occur.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor in or transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone in force from December 04, 2015, to March 15, 2016 that prohibits entry within 500 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel conducting rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations in the Delaware River near Marcus Hook, PA between the southern end of Marcus Hook Anchorage to the western end of Little Tinicum Island, at the entrance to Darby Creek. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering this zone, except as authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
(2) Vessels wishing to transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may do so if they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the dredge TEXAS in accordance with the Navigational Rules in 33 CFR Subchapter E via VHF-FM Channel 13 at least 30 minutes prior to arrival. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the dredge TEXAS, they may request permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative, on VHF-FM channel 16.
(3) The operator of any vessel requesting to transit through the safety zone shall proceed as directed by the designated representative of the Captain of the Port and must operate at the minimum safe speed necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake.
(4) No vessels may transit through the safety zone during times of explosives detonation. During rock blasting detonation vessels will be required to maintain a 500 yard distance from the drill boat APACHE. The drill boat APACHE will make broadcasts, via VHF-FM Channel 13 and 16, at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, and 1 minute prior to detonation, as well as a countdown to detonation on VHF-FM Channel 16.
(5) After every explosive detonation a survey will be conducted to ensure the navigational channel is clear for vessels to transit. The drill boat APACHE will broadcast, via VHF-FM channel 13 and 16, when the survey has been completed and the channel is clear to transit. Vessels requesting to transit through the safety zone shall proceed as directed by the designated representative of the Captain of the Port and contact the drill boat APACHE on VHF-FM channel 13 to make safe passing arrangements.
(6) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
(i) Enforcing laws;
(ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
(iii) Emergency response vessels.
(7) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port;
(8) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port;
(9) No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port; and
(10) No person may take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is issuing this final rule to change the name of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). This action is being taken to more accurately reflect the nature of the work that this office does to protect human health and the environment. In addition, technical corrections are made to more accurately state the laws implemented previously by OSWER (now OLEM), and to reflect prior organizational changes.
This rule is effective on December 15, 2015.
Patricia Derkasch, EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), Office of Program Management (OPM), Mail Code: 5103T; telephone 202.566.2949; email address
This action provides notice directed to the public in general and has particular applicability to anyone who wants to communicate with the new Office of Land and Emergency Management, or to submit information to the Office. Since this action predominantly affects the internal organization of the EPA, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
To obtain electronic copies of this document and other related information that are available electronically, please visit
This action changes the organizational name of an EPA office as it appears in various parts of the Code of Federal Regulations to more accurately reflect the current functions of that office. The notice changes the name of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM).
In addition, this action amends 40 CFR 1.47 to provide a more complete list of the various land protection and pollution emergency laws that fall under the Office's authority, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA); the Oil Pollution Act (OPA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); section 311 of the Clean Water Act; and the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. This listing merely restates the existing responsibilities of the Office, and does not add to or subtract from those responsibilities.
Two sentences are appended to 40 CFR 1.47 to clarify that for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6911(a) and 6911a, the functions of the Office of Solid Waste are carried out by OLEM, and the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste are carried out by the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management.
Finally, this action deletes the descriptions of sub-offices within the Office found at 40 CFR 1.47(a) through (d). The text in the opening paragraph of 40 CFR 1.47 provides a full explanation of the role played by the Office and the additional language in the subsections is unnecessary. In addition, some of the descriptions in the subsections are out of date. None of the changes described above affect the rights or obligations of third parties.
The EPA is issuing this document under its general rulemaking authority, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. app.). Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), provides that “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” are exempt from notice and comment requirements, and the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
Because the exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) applies to this action, the EPA is making this rule immediately effective. Delaying its effectiveness by 30 days would serve no purpose and could, in fact, create a short period of public confusion. Because the rule is effective immediately, this action also is final for the purposes of judicial review under RCRA section 7006(a), 42 U.S.C. 6976(a).
This final rule implements a name change to one of the EPA's offices and does not otherwise impose or change any requirements. This action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Organization and functions.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions.
Environmental protection, Education, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental protection, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552.
The Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), also referred to as the Office of Solid Waste, or the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, under the supervision of the Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management, also referred to as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste, provides Agencywide policy, guidance, and direction for the Agency's solid and hazardous wastes and emergency response programs. This Office has primary responsibility for implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA—“Superfund”), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA); the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; the Oil Pollution Act; Clean Water Act section 311; and the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act; among other laws. In addition to managing those programs, the Assistant Administrator serves as principal adviser to the Administrator in matters pertaining to them. The Assistant Administrator's responsibilities include: Program policy development and evaluation; development of appropriate hazardous waste standards and regulations; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations; program policy guidance and overview, technical support, and evaluation of Regional solid and hazardous wastes and emergency response activities; development of programs for technical, programmatic, and compliance assistance to States and local governments; development of guidelines and standards for the land disposal of hazardous wastes; analyses of the recovery of useful energy from solid waste; development and implementation of a program to respond to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills (including oil spills); long-term strategic planning and special studies; economic and long-term environmental analyses; economic impact assessment of regulations under RCRA, CERCLA, and other relevant statutes; analyses of alternative technologies and trends; and cost-benefit analyses and development of OLEM environmental criteria. For purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6911(a), OLEM carries out the functions of the Office of Solid Waste. For purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6911a, the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste are carried out by the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management.
42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-7 and 6101
20. Assistance provided by the Office of Land and Emergency Management under the Comprehensive Environmental Responses, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980; Pub. L. 96-510, section 3012, 42 U.S.C. 9601,
42 U.S.C.s 6912, 6928, and 6991b.
(b) The initial administrative order shall be executed by an authorized official of EPA (petitioner), other than the Regional Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management. For orders issued by EPA Headquarters, rather than by a Regional office, all references in these procedures to the Regional Administrator shall be understood to be to the Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management or his delegatee.
Sec. 103 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7403), secs. 104(g), 109, and 111 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1254(g), 1259, and 1261), secs. 7007 and 8001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6977 and 6981); sec. 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300j-1). 2 CFR 200.
42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429.
(c) The Regional Administrator may grant a non-waste determination that a non-hazardous secondary material that is used as a fuel, which is not managed within the control of the generator, is not discarded and is not a solid waste when combusted. This responsibility may be retained by the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management if combustors are located in multiple EPA Regions and the petitioner requests that the Assistant Administrator process the non-waste determination petition. If multiple combustion units are located in one EPA Region, the application must be submitted to the Regional Administrator for that Region. The criteria and process for making such non-waste determinations includes the following:
(1) Submittal of an application to the Regional Administrator for the EPA Region where the facility or facilities are located or the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management for a determination that the non-hazardous secondary material, even though it has been transferred to a third party, has not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product. The determination will be based on whether the non-hazardous secondary material that has been discarded is a legitimate fuel as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and on the following criteria:
(2) The Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management will evaluate the application pursuant to the following procedures:
(ii) The Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management will evaluate the application and issue a draft notice tentatively granting or denying the application. Notification of this tentative decision will be published in a newspaper advertisement or radio broadcast in the locality where the facility combusting the non-hazardous secondary material is located, and be made available on the EPA's Web site.
(iii) The Regional Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management will accept public comments on the tentative decision for 30 days, and may also hold a public hearing upon request or at his/her discretion. The Regional Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management will issue a final decision after receipt of comments and after a hearing (if any). If a determination is made that the non-hazardous secondary material is a non-waste fuel, it will be retroactive and apply on the date the petition was submitted.
(iv) If a change occurs that affects how a non-hazardous secondary material meets the relevant criteria contained in this paragraph (c) after a formal non-waste determination has been granted, the applicant must re-apply to the Regional Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management for a formal determination that the non-hazardous secondary material continues to meet the relevant criteria and, thus, is not a solid waste.
42 U.S.C. 9611(c)(11), 9623.
(d) Mail your completed application and supporting data to the LGR Project Officer, (5401A), Office of Emergency Management, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.
(i) * * * (1) The officials designated in paragraph (e) of this section and § 761.70(a) and (b) to receive requests for approval of PCB disposal activities are the primary approval authorities for these activities. Notwithstanding, EPA may, at its discretion, assign the authority to review and approve any aspect of a disposal system to the Office of Land and Emergency Management or to a Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On May 11, 2015, the State of Washington made a submittal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is approving the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any other state.
This final rule is effective January 14, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0334. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
On October 27, 2015, the EPA proposed to find that Washington adequately addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 65672). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on November 27, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.
The EPA approves the Washington SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the
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 16, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Final rule.
This rule sets forth the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council's (Council) regulation to implement the Spill Impact Component of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act). This rule establishes the formula allocating funds made available from the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund among the Gulf Coast States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas (“State” or “States”) pursuant to Sec. 1603(3) of the RESTORE Act.
This rule will become effective on the date the Council publishes in the
The Council posted all comments on the proposed rule on its Web site,
Will Spoon at (504) 239-9814.
The Gulf Coast region is vital to our nation and our economy, providing valuable energy resources, abundant seafood, extraordinary beaches and recreational activities, and a rich natural and cultural heritage. Its waters and coasts are home to one of the most diverse natural environments in the world—including over 15,000 species of sea life and millions of migratory birds. The Gulf has endured many catastrophes, including major hurricanes such as Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike in the last ten years alone. The region has also experienced the loss of critical wetland habitats, erosion of barrier islands, imperiled fisheries, water quality degradation and significant coastal land loss. More recently, the health of the region's ecosystem was significantly affected by the
In 2010 the
Under the RESTORE Act, these funds will be made available through five components. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has issued regulations (79 FR 48039 (Aug. 15, 2014)), adopting an interim final rule at 31 CFR part 34) (Treasury Regulations), applicable to all five components, that generally describe the responsibilities of the Federal and State entities that administer RESTORE Act programs and carry out restoration activities in the Gulf Coast region.
Two of the five components, the Council-Selected Restoration Component and the Spill Impact Component, are administered by the Council, an independent Federal entity created by the RESTORE Act. Under the Spill Impact Component (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)), the subject of this rule, 30% of funds in the Trust Fund will be disbursed to the States based on allocation criteria set forth in the RESTORE Act.
SEPs must meet the following four criteria set forth in the RESTORE Act: (1) All projects, programs and activities (activities) included in the SEP are eligible activities under the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(i)(I)); (2) all activities included in the SEP contribute to the overall economic and ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(i)(II)); (3) the SEP takes the Council's Comprehensive Plan into consideration and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(i)(III)); and (4) no more than 25% of the allotted funds are used for infrastructure projects unless the SEP contains certain certifications pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(ii) (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(ii)). If the Council determines that an SEP meets the four criteria listed above and otherwise complies with the RESTORE Act and the applicable Treasury Regulations, the Council must approve the SEP based upon such determination within 60 days after a State submits an SEP to the Council. 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(iv).
The funds the Council disburses to the States upon approval of an SEP will be in the form of grants. As required by Federal law, the Council will award a Federal grant or grants to each of the States and incorporate into the grant award(s) standard administrative terms
The ultimate amount of administrative and civil penalties potentially available to the Trust Fund is not yet certain. On January 3, 2013, the United States announced that Transocean Deepwater Inc. and related entities agreed to pay $1 billion in civil penalties for violating the Clean Water Act in relation to their conduct in the
This rule establishes the formula for allocating among the five States funds made available through the Spill Impact Component of the Trust Fund (Spill Impact Component), as required by the RESTORE Act, and supplements the Treasury Regulations. This rule, and the application of any determinations made hereunder, is limited to the Spill Impact Component and is promulgated solely for the purpose of establishing such allocation. The Council takes no position on what data or determinations may be appropriate for other uses, including for any other Component of the RESTORE Act or in connection with natural resource damage assessments, ongoing litigation, any other law or regulation or any rights or obligations in connection therewith.
The RESTORE Act mandates that funds made available from the Trust Fund for the Spill Impact Component be disbursed to each State based on a formula established by the Council by a regulation based on a weighted average of the following three criteria: (1) 40% based on the proportionate number of miles of shoreline in each State that experienced oiling on or before April 10, 2011, compared to the total number of miles of shoreline throughout the Gulf Coast region that experienced oiling as a result of the
On September 29, 2015, the Council published a proposed rule (80 FR 58417) establishing the formula for allocating among the five States funds made available through the Spill Impact Component, as required by the RESTORE Act. During the thirty-day comment period the Council received eleven written comments addressing the draft rule, from private citizens, other government entities (such as state, county and local entities), non-governmental organizations and others. All comments were reviewed and carefully considered by the Council before finalizing the rule. (The Council received fourteen additional comments not addressing the draft rule (for example, addressing specific restoration project preferences or addressing the Funded Priorities List) and did not respond to those comments herein.)
The Council has made one clarifying edit to the final rule. In the first sentence of 40 CFR 1800.400, the phrase “coastal political subdivisions” has been replaced by “coastal counties” in conformance with the Act pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III).
The Council's SEP Guidelines were carefully drafted to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the relevant requirements in the RESTORE Act. These Guidelines, which do not establish any Council discretion in evaluating or approving SEPs (
Thus the Council first determined which counties in each State are coastal counties, then used the 2010 Decennial Census data to determine the population of each of those counties, and finally calculated the average coastal county population within each State, compared to the respective averages of the other States, to arrive at the final percentage allocation for this criterion. No change was made to the rule in response to this comment.
One commenter supported the Council's definition of coastal counties in the rule formula.
The Council thus considered the list of coastal counties used by the State of Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) (
The Council also consulted other Texas information sources. For example, the Council considered using the list used by the Texas Coastal Management Program (TX CMP) setting forth all or part of eighteen counties subject to the TX CMP. The Council found that the TX CMP does not contain a list of “coastal counties,” but rather tracks a “coastal zone.” The “coastal zone” area is defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq.) based on hydrologic and geographic standards (see 16 U.S.C. 1453(1)) that are not meaningful for purposes of the Council defining “coastal counties” pursuant to the RESTORE Act at 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III).
The Council also considered the definition of “coastal political subdivisions” used in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1356a) and rejected it because it also in part uses the CZMA definition of “coastal zone” to define “coastal political subdivisions.”
After having thus considered the TRC list and other sources, the Council concludes that the list of Texas coastal counties provided in the rule is reasonable and appropriate in implementing the provisions of the Spill Impact Component of the RESTORE Act. No change was made to the rule in response to this comment.
The Council is using the TRC list only for purposes of establishing the population criterion of the rule formula pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III); this use of the TRC list has no bearing on any other determination of coastal counties, areas, political subdivisions or jurisdictions, under Federal or state law or otherwise.
It should be noted that the rule formula establishes only the allocation of Spill Impact Component funds to each State and has no bearing on where in a State such funds may be expended; for example, the State of Texas could elect to fund projects and/or programs within Harris County. Spending decisions will be made by each State in accordance with the State Expenditure Plan(s) to be created by each State under the RESTORE Act and the Treasury Regulations (including the limitation of programs to those carried out in the “Gulf Coast Region,”
The Council made one clarifying edit to the final rule. In the first sentence of 40 CFR 1800.400, the phrase “coastal political subdivisions” has been replaced by “coastal counties” in conformance with the Act pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III).
The Council did not receive any public comments addressing the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the promulgation of the rule or the Council's approval or funding of an SEP. The Council adopts the analysis detailed in the proposed rule (80 FR 58417, 58419 (Sept. 29, 2015)) that NEPA review is not required to issue this rule and will not be required in connection with Council approval or funding of an SEP.
NEPA review will apply to specific activities undertaken pursuant to Council-approved SEPs that require significant Federal action before they can commence. For example, an SEP project requiring a Federal permit would generally require NEPA review by the issuing Federal agency, and obtaining such a permit might also require other Federal environmental compliance. No SEP implementation funds for an activity will be disbursed by the Council to a State until all requisite permits and licenses have been obtained.
After considering all public comments, the Council now issues the final rule. The rule will take effect on the date when and if the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approves and enters the Consent Decree.
As an independent Federal entity that is composed of, in part, six Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, the Army, Commerce, and the Interior, and the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 are inapplicable to this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is promulgated solely to establish an allocation formula and State allocation percentages. As such, there are no associated paperwork requirements. Any paperwork necessary to submit a SEP under the Spill Impact component of the RESTORE Act required by statute and not by this rule.
Coastal zone, Fisheries, Grant programs, Grants administration, Intergovernmental relations, Marine resources, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Research, Science and technology, Trusts and trustees, Wildlife.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council amends 40 CFR part 1800 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(t).
This subpart establishes the formula applicable to the Spill Impact Component authorized under the RESTORE Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 588-607).
The RESTORE Act provides that thirty percent (30%) of the funds made available from the Trust Fund for the Oil Spill Impact Component be disbursed to each of the Gulf Coast States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas based on a formula established by the Council (Spill Impact Formula), through a regulation, that is based on a weighted average of the following criteria:
(a) Forty percent (40%) based on the proportionate number of miles of shoreline in each Gulf Coast State that experienced oiling on or before April 10, 2011, compared to the total number of miles of shoreline that experienced oiling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill;
(b) Forty percent (40%) based on the inverse proportion of the average distance from the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon at the time of the explosion to the nearest and farthest point of the shoreline that experienced oiling of each Gulf Coast State; and
(c) Twenty percent (20%) based on the average population in the 2010 Decennial Census of coastal counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico within each Gulf Coast State.
Solely for the purpose of calculating the Spill Impact Formula, the following shall apply, rounded to one decimal place with respect to miles of shoreline:
According to Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique and Rapid Assessment Technique data provided by the United States Coast Guard, the miles of shoreline that experienced oiling on or before April 10, 2011 for each Gulf Coast State are:
(a) Alabama—89.8 miles.
(b) Florida—174.6 miles.
(c) Louisiana—658.3 miles.
(d) Mississippi—158.6 miles.
(e) Texas—36.0 miles.
The proportionate number of miles for each Gulf Coast State is determined by dividing each Gulf Coast State's number of miles of oiled shoreline determined in § 1800.201 by the total number of affected miles. This calculation yields the following:
(a) Alabama—8.04%.
(b) Florida—15.63%.
(c) Louisiana—58.92%.
(d) Mississippi—14.19%.
(e) Texas—3.22%.
Solely for the purpose of calculating the Spill Impact Formula, the following shall apply, rounded to one decimal place with respect to distance:
(a) Alabama—The distance from the nearest point of the Alabama shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 89.2 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Alabama shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 103.7 miles. The average of these two distances is 96.5 miles.
(b) Florida—The distance from the nearest point of the Florida shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 102.3 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Florida shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 207.6 miles. The average of these two distances is 154.9 miles.
(c) Louisiana—The distance from the nearest point of the Louisiana shoreline
(d) Mississippi—The distance from the nearest point of the Mississippi shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 87.7 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Mississippi shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 107.9 miles. The average of these two distances is 97.8 miles.
(e) Texas—The distance from the nearest point of the Texas shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 306.2 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Texas shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 356.5 miles. The average of these two distances is 331.3 miles.
The inverse proportion for each Gulf Coast State is determined by summing the proportional average distances determined in § 1800.301 and taking the inverse. This calculation yields the following:
(a) Alabama—27.39%.
(b) Florida—17.06%.
(c) Louisiana—20.55%.
(d) Mississippi—27.02%.
(e) Texas—7.98%.
Solely for the purpose of calculating the Spill Impact Formula, the coastal counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico within each Gulf Coast State are:
(a) The Alabama Coastal Counties, consisting of Baldwin and Mobile counties;
(b) The Florida Coastal Counties, consisting of Bay, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dixie, Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Hernando, Hillsborough, Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Monroe, Okaloosa, Pasco, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Taylor, Wakulla, and Walton counties;
(c) The Louisiana Coastal Parishes, consisting of Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Terrebonne, and Vermilion parishes;
(d) The Mississippi Coastal Counties, consisting of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties; and
(e) The Texas Coastal Counties, consisting of Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kennedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, and Willacy counties.
The average populations in the 2010 decennial census for each Gulf Coast State, rounded to the nearest whole number, are:
(a) For the Alabama Coastal Counties, 297,629 persons;
(b) For the Florida Coastal Counties, 252,459 persons;
(c) For the Louisiana Coastal Parishes, 133,633 persons;
(d) For the Mississippi Coastal Counties,123,567 persons; and
(e) For the Texas Coastal Counties, 147,845 persons.
The distribution of funds based on average populations for each Gulf Coast State is determined by dividing the average population determined in § 1800.401 by the sum of those average populations. This calculation yields the following results:
(a) Alabama—31.16%.
(b) Florida—26.43%.
(c) Louisiana—13.99%.
(d) Mississippi—12.94%.
(e) Texas—15.48%.
Using the data from §§ 1800.200 through 1800.402 of this subpart in the formula provided in § 1800.101 of this subpart yields the following allocation for each Gulf Coast State:
(a) Alabama—20.40%.
(b) Florida—18.36%.
(c) Louisiana—34.59%.
(d) Mississippi—19.07%.
(e) Texas—7.58%.
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf States Act (RESTORE Act or Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) announces the availability of the Initial Funded Priorities List (FPL). The FPL sets forth the initial activities that the Council will fund and prioritize for further consideration.
December 15, 2015.
The Council posted all comments on the draft version of the FPL on its Web site,
Will Spoon at 504-239-9814.
In 2010, the
In addition to creating the Trust Fund, the Act established the Council, which is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes the Governors of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, the Army, Homeland Security, and the Interior, and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Under the Act, the Council will administer a portion of the Trust Fund known as the Council-Selected Restoration Component in order to “undertake projects and programs, using the best available science, that would restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf
As a supplement to the Initial Plan and pursuant to the requirement in the Restore Act to draft a “prioritized list of specific projects and programs to be funded,” the Council is now publishing the initial FPL that lists the activities which the Council will fund and prioritize for further consideration.
After reviewing and considering all of the public comments, on December 9, 2015 the Council approved the FPL.
The members of the Council collaborated in creating the FPL that responds to ecological needs regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The FPL will provide near-term “on-the-ground” ecosystem benefits, while also building a planning and science foundation for future success. The FPL focuses on ten key watersheds across the Gulf in order to concentrate and leverage available funds in addressing critical ecological needs in high-priority locations. It focuses on habitat and water quality, and includes restoration and conservation activities that can be implemented in the near term. It also supports project-specific planning efforts necessary to advance large-scale restoration. The comprehensive planning and monitoring efforts included in the FPL will provide Gulf-wide benefits into the future.
The Council intends to play a key role in helping to ensure that the Gulf's natural resources are sustainable and available for future generations. Currently available Gulf restoration funds and those that may become available in the future represent a great responsibility. The ongoing involvement of the people who live, work and play in the Gulf region is critical to ensuring that these monies are used wisely and effectively. The Council thanks all those who have participated in the process thus far, and offers thanks in advance to those who will take the time to again offer thoughts on how we can collectively help restore the Gulf.
Electronic versions of the FPL can be viewed and downloaded at
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Direct final rule.
The NTSB is publishing an amendment to its regulations concerning notification and reporting requirements with regard to aircraft accidents or incidents, titled, “Immediate notification.” The regulation currently requires reports of Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) advisories issued under certain specific circumstances. The NTSB now narrows the ACAS reporting requirement, consistent with the agency's authority to issue non-controversial amendments to rules, pursuant to the direct final rulemaking procedure. The NTSB also updates its contact information for notifications.
This direct final rule will be effective February 16, 2016, without further notice, unless the NTSB receives adverse comment by January 14, 2016. If the NTSB receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
A copy of this direct final rule, published in the
Scott Dunham, National Resource Specialist—ATC, Office of Aviation Safety, (202) 314-6387.
On October 7, 2008, the NTSB published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records.” 73 FR 58520. The NPRM proposed several additions to 49 CFR 830.5, to require reports of various types of serious aviation incidents. Among the proposed requirements, the NTSB sought mandatory reports of Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either (i) when an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft, or (ii) to an aircraft operating in class A airspace. 73 FR 58523-24.
On January 7, 2010, the NTSB published its amendment to the final rule by requiring operators of civil aircraft to report certain ACAS incidents, along with other types of serious incidents. 75 FR 922. The NTSB explained its intent in imposing this reporting requirement is to identify, evaluate, and investigate (when appropriate) serious incidents where aircraft maneuvers were required to avert a substantial risk of collision between aircraft equipped with traffic collision avoidance systems (TCAS) and other aircraft and to evaluate situations where resolution advisories occur between aircraft under positive control in class A airspace. The NTSB clarified it did not intend to require the reporting of all resolution advisories or, outside class A airspace, to require the reporting of any resolution advisory resulting from an encounter between aircraft where no substantial risk of collision exists. 75 FR 925-26.
The NTSB stated it believed the reporting requirement would achieve the NTSB's objective of receiving notification of aircraft encounters that
By this direct final rule, the NTSB removes the requirement of notifications of ACAS reports from aircraft operators within Class A airspace. The NTSB has determined, through review of the types of events submitted, that it is possible to reduce the scope of the notification requirement while still achieving the safety objective of the rule, which is to increase our awareness of potentially hazardous occurrences in the air traffic control system.
When it issued the requirement of § 830.5(a)(10), the NTSB anticipated its collection of ACAS incident reports would educate the agency concerning whether the TCAS equipment functioned appropriately. In addition, the NTSB sought information concerning whether operators received improper resolution advisories, as well as a general understanding of the effectiveness of TCAS.
Collecting the data on the volume of TCAS alerts that fulfill the criteria listed in § 830.5(a)(10) has been educational and has assisted the NTSB Office of Aviation Safety with understanding the general effectiveness of TCAS as well as the types of encounters that are likely to cause TCAS resolution advisories.
Amending § 830.5(a)(10) to narrow the reporting requirement of TCAS resolution advisories also achieves the purpose of Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011). The purpose of Executive Order 13579 is to ensure all agencies adhere to the key principles found in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), which emphasizes agencies must promulgate regulations that are written plainly and clearly written, and do not present duplicative or unnecessary requirements. Removing the requirement of notifications from aircraft operators within Class A airspace that receive a TCAS resolution advisory achieves the purpose of Executive Order 13563, because the NTSB has concluded the notifications are not necessary.
The NTSB has determined it is appropriate to narrow the reporting requirement in § 830.5(a)(10) by publishing a Direct Final Rule. On September 23, 2015, the NTSB published a Final Rule codifying its authority to utilize the direct final rulemaking process to alter rules that are not controversial and to which the NTSB does not expect substantive comments. 80 FR 57307. As explained in its NPRM describing this process, agencies frequently use the direct final rulemaking process for minor changes to rules to which it does not expect adverse comments. 80 FR 34874 (June 18, 2015). The NTSB's rule on this procedure, codified at 49 CFR 800.44, states a direct final rule makes changes to a regulation which will take effect on a certain date unless the NTSB receives an adverse comment or a notice of intent to file an adverse comment. If the NTSB receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file one, the agency will publish a document in the
This change limits required notifications to events that evidence a significant risk of collision, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on aircraft operators while continuing to achieve the safety objective of the rule. Informal discussions with organizations such as Air Line Pilots Association, International, Airlines for America, Regional Airline Association, and National Air Carrier Association have shown these organizations support the amendment. Overall, we do not expect to receive any negative industry comments.
The NTSB notes it analyzed the potential application of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) to this rule. The NTSB certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, this rule will not require collection of new information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Operators continue to have the option of notifying the NTSB of an ACAS advisory that fulfills the requirements of this rule via telephone or email. The NTSB is continuing to work with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to obtain an OMB control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act to collect reports of ACAS advisories, as well as other notifications, via a web-based form. See 80 FR 38751 (July 7, 2015).
Pursuant to 49 CFR 800.44(c), the NTSB will publish a confirmation rule in the
Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents, Aviation safety, Overdue aircraft notification and reporting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB amends 49 CFR part 830 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 1101-1155; Pub. L. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 40101).
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:
(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued when an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to a temporary rule published in the
The effective date for the final rule published November 27, 2015, at 80 FR 74001, is 12 p.m., local time, November 28, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 1, 2016.
Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
In the temporary rule that published in the
The correct effective date for the temporary rule is November 28, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 1, 2016.
In the
“Accordingly, the Florida west coast northern subzone is closed effective noon, local time, November 28, 2015, through September 30, 2016, the end of the current fishing year, to commercial fishing for Gulf migratory group king mackerel.”
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of data availability (NODA); request for information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently weighing whether and how to regulate the energy efficiency of certain refrigeration products such as wine chillers and beverage centers (collectively, “coolers”). These “miscellaneous refrigeration products” (“MREFs”) include coolers that do not operate using a conventional compressor/condenser-based system, particularly those products that use a thermoelectric-based refrigeration system. In support of this effort, DOE has collected and analyzed a variety of data to better understand the composition of the MREF industry and its products. To ensure its understanding of this market and its products, DOE is requesting additional information from the public related to the manufacturers of thermoelectric-based MREFs.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the NODA no later than January 14, 2016. Details regarding the data referenced in this document are provided in docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, available at
Comments may be submitted to the addresses provided in section IV. of the
The docket, EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, is available for review at
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
Direct requests for additional information may be sent to Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-4549. Email:
In the office of the General Counsel, contact Mr. Michael Kido, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-8145,
In November 2011, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) began a process to consider whether to include as covered products and establish energy conservation standards for certain types of refrigeration products that largely fall outside of DOE's regulations pertaining to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”), DOE may add a new product to its scope of regulatory coverage when certain criteria are met. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) (laying out specific criteria to satisfy when classifying a consumer product not already statutorily-covered as a covered product). Similarly, DOE may set energy conservation standards for those newly covered products if additional criteria are met. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) (detailing additional requirements to meet prior to prescribing standards for newly covered products). As part of its continuing efforts to improve consumer product and industrial equipment energy efficiency, DOE is considering including miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”), such as coolers that do not use a compressor/condenser-based system, to its list of products for
To help better inform its potential regulation of these items, DOE announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group that would operate under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) with the purpose of exploring possible energy efficiency requirements for MREFs. See 80 FR 17355 (April 1, 2015). DOE solicited the public for participants to help serve on the MREF Working Group and identified various groups who would be significantly affected by a rulemaking that would address MREF energy efficiency. See
The consensus agreement reached by the various participating parties was based on research and testing data related to MREF products. The data from this effort were used to create a comprehensive technical analysis that the Working Group used to develop the recommendations in its consensus agreement. The agreement was prepared for submission to ASRAC, which would then weigh its merits for approval for further consideration by DOE.
Among the issues considered by the Working Group were the potential impacts related to manufacturers of thermoelectric-based MREF products. While DOE believes that the MREF Working Group, which included one manufacturer who currently sells thermoelectric-based products and other manufacturers who have sold thermoelectric coolers in the past, comprised a group of persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, including manufacturers of thermoelectric-based MREF products, DOE is seeking comment and any additional information regarding the nature of these manufacturers, and the marketing nuances and other issues specifically facing the manufacturers of thermoelectric-based MREF products.
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this notice of data availability and request for information. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following data and questions related to the manufacturers of thermoelectric-based MREF products:
(1) The number, location, size, product offering, and business structure of the original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) producing thermoelectric coolers for sale in the U.S. market.
(2) The sales channels of the thermoelectric cooler OEMs serving the U.S. market. Which of these OEMs sell products directly to the U.S. market and which serve the U.S. market indirectly through private labelers?
(3) The U.S. market shares (in terms of total shipments) of both the thermoelectric cooler private labelers and OEMs.
(4) Using a database of models generated from publicly available information (including existing product databases and manufacturer and vendor Web sites), DOE identified over 30 brands of cooler models offered for sale in the U.S. that utilize thermoelectric refrigeration systems—all of which appear to be manufactured overseas. In DOE's view, the current market is competitive with no one dominant player and includes such private labelers as Vinotemp, Wine Enthusiast, Koolatron, and Haier. DOE seeks comment on whether this description of the thermoelectric cooler market is accruate and whether using the number of cooler models available on the U.S. market can be used as a proxy for market share for the cooler industry.DOE considered thermoelectric coolers when generating engineering analysis information included in the preliminary analysis (79 FR 71705 (Dec. 3, 2014)) and updated its analysis documents based on the Working Group discussions. (DOE's engineering analysis documents developed in support of the Working Group meetings are available at
(5) DOE seeks comment as to whether there are any substantive issues with relying on information furnished by private labelers who purchase thermoelectric-based MREFs for purposes of DOE's manufacturer impacts analysis. If there are no issues with relying on this information (or its source), please so state.
(6) DOE also seeks any additional feedback relating to its analyses that it is making available as part of this NODA as it relates to thermoelectric manufacturers.
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this NODA and on other relevant issues that participants believe would affect the eventual test procedures and energy conservation standards applicable to MREF products. Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking.
After the close of the comment period, DOE will begin reviewing the public comments and making any necessary adjustments to its standards analysis supporting its rulemaking proceeding concerning potential energy conservation standards for MREF products.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and
In proposed rule document 2015-30694 beginning on page 75955 in the issue of Monday, December 7, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 75956, in the first column, in the second paragraph, in the fifth and sixth lines “is 866-623-8636 and participant code is 4816474” should read “will be provided to remote participants prior to the December 9, 2015 hearing.”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability (NODA).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of preliminary lists of units eligible for allocations of emission allowances under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the CSAPR federal implementation plans (FIPs), portions of each covered state's annual emissions budgets for each of the four CSAPR emissions trading programs are reserved for allocation to electricity generating units that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010 (new units) and certain other units not otherwise obtaining allowance allocations under the FIPs. The quantities of allowances allocated to eligible units from each new unit set-aside (NUSA) under the FIPs are calculated in an annual one- or two-round allocation process. EPA previously completed the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2015 control periods for all four CSAPR trading programs, as well as the second round of allocations for the CSAPR NO
Objections to the information referenced in this notice of availability must be received on or before January 14, 2016.
Submit your objections via email to
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or
Under the CSAPR FIPs, the mechanisms by which initial allocations of emission allowances are determined differ for “existing” and “new” units. For “existing” units—that is, units commencing commercial operation before January 1, 2010—the specific amounts of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations for all control periods have been established through rulemaking. EPA has announced the availability of spreadsheets showing the CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units in previous notices.
“New” units—that is, units commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010—as well as certain older units that would not otherwise obtain FIP allowance allocations do not have pre-established allowance allocations. Instead, the CSAPR FIPs reserve a portion of each state's total annual emissions budget for each CSAPR emissions trading program as a new unit set-aside (NUSA)
EPA has already completed the first round of allocations of 2015 NUSA allowances for all four CSAPR trading programs, as well as the second round of 2015 NUSA allocations to units subject to the CSAPR Ozone Season Trading Program, as announced in notices previously published in the
The units eligible to receive second-round NUSA allocations for the CSAPR NO
The total quantity of allowances to be allocated through the 2015 NUSA allowance allocation process for each state and emissions trading program—in the two rounds of the allocation process combined—is generally the state's 2015 emissions budget less the sum of (1) the total of the 2015 CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units and (2) the amount of the 2015 Indian country NUSA, if any.
Second-round NUSA allocations for a given state, trading program, and control period are made only if the NUSA contains allowances after completion of the first-round allocations.
The amounts of second-round allocations of CSAPR NO
Any allowances remaining in the CSAPR NO
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given EGU does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the EGU. EPA also notes that allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit to which NUSA allowances have been allocated for a given control period is not actually an affected unit as of the start of that control period.
The preliminary lists of units eligible for second-round 2015 NUSA allowance allocations for the three CSAPR annual trading programs are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOx_Annual_2nd_Round_Prelim_Data,” “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_SO
Each state worksheet also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2015 NUSA, (2) the sum of the 2015 NUSA allowance allocations that were made in the first-round to new units in that state (if any), and (3) the quantity of allowances in the 2015 NUSA available for distribution in second-round allocations to new units (or ultimately for allocation to existing units).
Objections should be strictly limited to whether EPA has correctly identified the new units eligible for second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NO
40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.611(b), and 97.711(b).
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) publishes this notice of proposed rulemaking to request public comment as it develops rules related to its review and approval of fees imposed by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as authorized by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Act).
Submit comments on or before January 14, 2016.
The public is invited to submit written comments to this proposed rule. Written comments may be submitted electronically through
Patrick Sullivan; Office of Public Safety Communications; National Telecommunications and Information Administration; U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401
This document proposes rules that will enable NTIA to execute its duty to review specific fees proposed by FirstNet in a manner compatible with FirstNet's need to operate as a business in a competitive marketplace. NTIA proposes to execute its statutory fee review duties to afford FirstNet as much flexibility as possible to establish its business and budgetary goals and to adjust those goals as necessary to respond to the day-to-day realities of the broader competitive marketplace in which FirstNet must operate. Ultimately, NTIA intends to implement a fee review process that allows FirstNet to respond to changing market conditions and the demands of its vital and dynamic customer base: First responders.
The Act requires FirstNet to be permanently self-funding and authorizes it to assess and collect certain types of fees to assure its sustainability. The Act requires that the total amount of FirstNet's annual fees must be sufficient to recoup FirstNet's total expenses, but such fees must not exceed the amount necessary to carry out its duties under the Act.
This notice of proposed rulemaking describes NTIA's overarching scope, boundaries, and guidelines for NTIA's fee review and approval process as required by law. Section II of this notice of proposed rulemaking details relevant statutory provisions and makes clear that, while NTIA has a distinct role through the fee review and approval process to ensure that FirstNet is self-funded, NTIA's role is a relatively limited part of broader statutory provisions designed to monitor FirstNet's financial condition and operational status.
Section III defines the scope of NTIA's proposed fee review and approval process. NTIA has determined that this process is for a particular and limited purpose: it must examine only whether the proposed fees of another federal entity—FirstNet—as set forth under Section 6208 of the Act, are, in aggregate and in combination with any FirstNet non-fee-based income, sufficient, but not in excess of, the projected funds that FirstNet needs to recoup the total expenses required to carry out its statutory obligations in a given year. NTIA acknowledges that, as authorized by the Act, FirstNet might receive income which is separate and distinct from the fee categories defined in Section 6208. NTIA recognizes that such income will impact NTIA's determination whether FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate and in combination with such non-fee-based income, will meet but not exceed the funds it needs on an annual basis. However, NTIA proposes that the Act affords NTIA no authority to review or approve as a “fee” any other form of income FirstNet may receive beyond those fees listed in Section 6208(a).
In Section IV, NTIA proposes a methodology for its fee review that must by law occur annually and prior to FirstNet's assessment of fees. Because NTIA's fee review process is for particular and limited purposes focusing on the financial sustainability of another federal entity within the Department of Commerce, NTIA will include in its review a review of FirstNet's projected expenses as set forth in its approved budgets as well as a review of FirstNet's prior-year actual expenses and revenues to facilitate FirstNet's compliance with Section 6208(b). To that end, NTIA proposes to utilize FirstNet's regular budget process and financial statements. NTIA also proposes to defer to FirstNet on any need for reserves, working capital, or similar fund categories. NTIA, however, will take such fund categories into consideration as part of its determination of whether the total proposed fees under Section 6208(b) meet, but do not exceed, FirstNet's total expenses.
In Section V, NTIA discusses the fees that NTIA has specific jurisdiction to review; if, in its review of aggregate revenues and costs, it determines that FirstNet has not satisfied the legal standard, FirstNet must adjust its fees or otherwise make budgetary changes to ensure that the standard is met. Specifically, NTIA proposes to define the term “fee,” for purposes of its statutory obligations under Section 6208(c) of the Act, to mean FirstNet's direct collection of money that is generated from the three categories established in Section 6208(a) of the Act: (1) Network user fees; (2) lease fees pursuant to a covered leasing agreement (CLA); and (3) fees from entities seeking access to or use of any network equipment or infrastructure constructed or otherwise owned by FirstNet.
We seek comment on these preliminary proposals. We also look forward to FirstNet's progress in its procurement process, which may provide additional information relevant to NTIA's duties under Section 6208(c). With such information from stakeholders and FirstNet, NTIA will be better informed to solidify the scope of its fee review and approval process as appropriate.
The Act established FirstNet as an independent authority within NTIA.
FirstNet's authority to operate as a business can and should further its ability to meet the Act's mandate that it become a self-sustaining enterprise. Section 6208 of the Act makes clear that FirstNet must establish permanent self-funding and is authorized to collect fees for specified uses of the Network or its components in furtherance of that obligation.
The Act established specific parameters for FirstNet's fee assessments described in Section 6208(a) to drive sustainability and continual reinvestment of FirstNet revenues into the Network. Section 6208(b), entitled, “Establishment of Fee Amounts; Permanent Self-Funding,” requires that the total amount of the fees assessed under Section 6208(c) for each fiscal year shall be sufficient, but cannot exceed, the amount necessary to recoup the total expenses of FirstNet as it carries out its duties under the Act.
Additionally, the Act makes clear that FirstNet should consider public-private partnerships, affording it additional authority to creatively support the provision of a self-funded broadband network for use by public safety entities.
NTIA's approach in this proposed rule reflects the scope of its fees review authority in the context of other supervision of FirstNet's finances and operations, which taken together, ensure a high degree of oversight over FirstNet's finances under the Act. The Act sets forth multiple methods of oversight of FirstNet well beyond the limited review and approval of fees required of NTIA under Section 6208(c). For example, FirstNet is subject to an independent financial audit. Section 6209 of the Act requires that the Secretary of Commerce engage an independent auditor to conduct an annual audit of all of FirstNet's commercial corporate transactions which the auditor will submit to Congress, the President, and FirstNet.
The Act does not provide a specific standard of review for NTIA's annual fee review and approval process under Section 6208(c).
Given this overarching directive in Section 6208(b), which immediately precedes the Act's assignation of fee review to NTIA in Section 6208(c), NTIA proposes that the Act's purpose for the fee review is solely to support FirstNet's obligation under Section 6208(b) to be self-funding. Thus, NTIA intends to base its decisions on FirstNet's proposed fees by only examining whether the fees are, in aggregate and combined with other non-fee-based income, sufficient, but not in excess, of the projected funds FirstNet needs to carry out its statutory obligations in a given fiscal year. In this way, NTIA's review and approval of FirstNet-proposed fees under Section 6208 will exclusively focus on FirstNet's projected income and expenses to further the self-funding requirements and limitations of Section 6208(b). We seek comment on this proposed approach.
The scope of review of a fee is established by the statute.
The wording of the Act itself does not direct NTIA to perform a reasonableness review. Section 6208(b), entitled, “Establishment Of Fee Amounts; Permanent Self-Funding,” requires that the total amount of the fees assessed by FirstNet for each fiscal year must be sufficient, but cannot exceed, the amount necessary to recoup the total expenses of FirstNet as it carries out its duties under the Act.
A review of other provisions of Title 47 demonstrates that when Congress intends for rates to be subject to a review for “reasonableness” or other subjective standards, it states this intention explicitly. For example, Section 201 of the Communications Act directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine whether the charges of telecommunications carriers are “just and reasonable.”
Moreover, a reasonableness review of FirstNet fees is unnecessary as a matter of policy. The Act does not mandate or require any public safety entity to purchase services from FirstNet. FirstNet must compete for subscribers by offering a compelling value proposition to prospective public safety customers. Public safety users themselves will determine whether FirstNet's proposed user fees are reasonable in comparison to the fees they are offered by competing providers.
Thus, NTIA proposes that it will not assess whether individual or total fees in any given category described in Section 6208(a) are reasonable, proportionate, or otherwise subjectively appropriate in light of individual or total fees in that category, or any other category of fees listed in Section 6208(a). With the proposed scope of its fee review, NTIA meets the intent of the self-funding provisions, but does not import “just and reasonable” review parameters that Congress clearly could have, but did not, include in the statute. We seek comment on these preliminary proposals.
Based on the preliminary conclusions above, NTIA proposes to base its approval of fees upon a determination of whether the proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income that FirstNet receives, meet but do not exceed FirstNet's anticipated total expenses associated with carrying out its duties as specified under the Act in a given year. As required by the Act, NTIA will conduct its fee review and approval process on an annual basis. Further, NTIA's proposed fee review and approval process will occur before a fee is assessed as required by the Act, and NTIA expects that FirstNet will propose such fees to NTIA in writing. Because FirstNet must compete in a broader marketplace for the opportunity to provide broadband service to public safety entities, it will need the flexibility over the course of a fiscal year to adjust specific fees it wishes to assess pursuant to Section 6208(a).
Thus, to empower FirstNet with the flexibility needed to compete in the marketplace, NTIA proposes that, as part of its annual fee review, it will also review FirstNet's actual fees and expenses from the previous four fiscal quarters. This process will afford FirstNet the opportunity to describe any significant discrepancies between projected and actual expenses and revenue of that previous fiscal year and detail how its projected fees and revenues for the upcoming fiscal year have addressed these discrepancies. In doing so, FirstNet will have an opportunity on an annual basis to ensure that its duty under Section 6208(b) is met. To determine FirstNet's anticipated expenses, among the specific costs areas that NTIA may consider are: (1) Salaries and Benefits; (2) Travel; (3) Services: Federal Sources; (4) Services: Non-Federal Sources; (5) Facilities Rental; (6) Supplies, Materials, and Printing; (7) Equipment; and (8) Other expenses or obligations incurred for future contract award, capital reserves, or other permitted expenses or obligations. NTIA anticipates deferring to FirstNet to determine the reasonableness of projected obligations in the aforementioned or other categories.
Throughout the fee review and approval process, NTIA anticipates utilizing the budget documents and financial statements produced in the normal course of FirstNet's business. NTIA might also utilize FirstNet's
Therefore, NTIA proposes that it will make, on an annual basis, one of three determinations with regard to proposed fees: (1) FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income to be received by FirstNet, meet but do not exceed FirstNet's projected total expenses; (2) FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income to be received by FirstNet, do not meet FirstNet's projected total expenses; or (3) FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income to be received by FirstNet, exceed FirstNet's projected total expenses. Upon making any of these determinations, NTIA will communicate its determination in writing to FirstNet. Should NTIA make the second or third determination listed above, NTIA will not approve FirstNet's proposed fees, and FirstNet may not assess them. NTIA proposes that it will accept any revised proposed fees or FirstNet approved revised budgets when provided by FirstNet in writing and evaluate them consistent with the scope and methodology proposed above.
We seek comment on this proposed approach to NTIA's fee review and approval process. We also seek comment on alternative methodologies that will further our fee review and approval process consistent with the Act's directives.
NTIA proposes that it should defer to FirstNet, in the context of its budgetary planning process, regarding the use and retention of reserves or working capital funds. By doing so, NTIA will not, in its fee review and approval process, assess whether or what level of funds FirstNet should maintain in reserves, capital accounts, or other funding categories. FirstNet's routine budget, auditing, and accounting processes will presumably determine the need for such capital reserve funds. NTIA plans to defer to FirstNet's determination of need for such funds through these processes. We seek comment on this proposed approach to NTIA's fee review and approval process.
Moreover, NTIA proposes that, in its fee review and approval process, it will take into consideration reserve funds at the levels designated in FirstNet's budget, to determine whether FirstNet's proposed fees meet but not exceed FirstNet's total expenses. In doing so, NTIA will deem such funds to be a part of FirstNet's projected total expenses under Section 6208(b) of the Act. We seek comment on this proposal.
The Act assigns a clear duty to NTIA under Section 6208: approve or disapprove the specific fees FirstNet aspires to assess under Section 6208. Under Section 6208(a) of the Act, FirstNet is authorized to assess and collect the following fees:
1. A Network User Fee: “A user or subscription fee from each entity, including any public safety entity or secondary user, that seeks access to or use of the [Network].”
2. Fees Pursuant to a Covered Leasing Agreement: “A fee from any entity that seeks to enter into a [CLA].”
3. Lease Fees Related to Network Equipment and Infrastructure: “A fee from any entity that seeks access to or use of any equipment or infrastructure, including antennas or towers, constructed or otherwise owned by the First Responder Network Authority resulting from a public-private arrangement to construct, manage, and operate the [Network]”
As a threshold matter for purposes of this proposed rule and NTIA's duty under Section 6208 of the Act, the word “fee,” as used in Section 6208(c) of the Act, must be defined. By defining the fees NTIA is to review, NTIA identifies the specific fees FirstNet must address prior to NTIA approval in the event NTIA must disapprove FirstNet-approved fees under the standards set forth above.
To implement its fee review obligations under the Act, NTIA must determine the meaning of the term “fee” as used in Section 6208. In the case of the Act, the three sets of fees, which FirstNet may assess, and which NTIA must review if assessed, are clearly defined within Section 6208(a). Thus, NTIA proposes that a “fee” that will be subject to its review and approval under Section 6208(c) is FirstNet's collection of money that falls within the three categories in Section 6208(a): (1) Network user fees; (2) lease fees related to network capacity, pursuant to a covered leasing agreement; and (3) fees from entities seeking access to or use of any equipment or infrastructure constructed or otherwise owned by FirstNet.
As noted above, NTIA recognizes that, under the Act, FirstNet may receive income that is separate and distinct from the fees defined in Section 6208(a). Such income must be factored into NTIA's determination of whether proposed fees, in aggregate, will meet but not exceed the funds needed by FirstNet on an annual basis. However, as the Act limits NTIA's review and approval authority to “the fees assessed in [Section 6208],” NTIA proposes that the Act gives it no authority to review or approve as a “fee” any other form of income FirstNet might receive. NTIA proposes that non-fee-based income, emanating from arrangements allowed by statute, is not a “fee” under Section 6208(a). Furthermore, NTIA proposes that it will consider any non-fee income only as part of its determination of whether such income, when combined in aggregate with the fees defined in Section 6208(a), will be sufficient to recoup FirstNet's total expenses, but not exceed the amount necessary, to carry out its statutory duties and responsibilities for the fiscal year involved. Moreover, NTIA proposes that it will not analyze the terms and conditions of any CLA, or any other agreement between FirstNet and another entity, beyond those specific terms and conditions which establish any fees that meet the three categories described in Section 6208(a). We seek comment on these preliminary proposals.
Any non-public oral presentation to NTIA regarding the substance of this proposed rule will be considered an ex parte presentation, and the substance of
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rulemaking, issued under the authority of the Act, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). If implemented, this rule would establish regulations, as required under the Act, for NTIA and FirstNet regarding the process by which NTIA reviews and approves or disapproves fees FirstNet proposes to assess. The RFA requires federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulations are for the particular and limited purpose of NTIA examining only whether the proposed fees of another federal entity—FirstNet—are, in aggregate and in combination with any FirstNet non-fee-based income, sufficient, but not in excess of, the projected funds that FirstNet needs to recoup the total expenses required to carry out its statutory obligations in a given year. No external entities, including any small businesses, small organizations, or small governments, will experience any direct economic impacts from this proposed rule. The only potential effect on any external entities, large or small, would likely be positive, as NTIA's proposed rules will assist in ensuring that FirstNet, as required under the Act, will sustain a nationwide public safety broadband network that provides broadband communications to first responders. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect only federal entities—NTIA and FirstNet—and not any small entities, the Department of Commerce has concluded that the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, the Department of Commerce Chief Counsel for Regulations has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.
It has been determined that this document does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
FirstNet, FirstNet Fees, Safety, Telecommunications.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration proposes to add 47 CFR Chapter V to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 1401.
Sections 500.2 through 500.5 implement 47 U.S.C. 1428(c) as codified pursuant to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401
(1) A Network User Fee;
(2) Lease Fees Related To Network Capacity; or
(3) Lease Fees Related To Network Equipment And Infrastructure, as those terms are defined under 47 U.S.C. 1428(a).
As required under 47 U.S.C. 1428(c), NTIA shall exclusively review fees, which must be proposed by FirstNet in writing, through NTIA's review and approval process conducted on an annual basis.
NTIA shall approve FirstNet proposed fees only if such fees, when combined with any non-fee-based income projected to be received by FirstNet, are sufficient, but do not exceed the amount necessary, to recoup FirstNet's total expenses in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under 47 U.S.C. 1401
(a)
(1) FirstNet's budget documents produced in the normal course of its business;
(2) FirstNet's financial statements produced in the normal course of its business;
(3) FirstNet's annual budget reports submitted as part of the President's Budget; and
(4) FirstNet's annual report to Congress.
(b)
(c)
(1) FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income to be received by FirstNet, meet but do not exceed FirstNet's projected total expenses;
(2) FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income to be received by FirstNet, do not meet FirstNet's projected total expenses; or
(3) FirstNet's proposed fees, in aggregate, when combined with any projected non-fee-based income to be received by FirstNet, exceed FirstNet's projected total expenses. Upon making any of these determinations, NTIA will communicate its determination in writing to FirstNet.
(d)
(1) Should NTIA make the determination listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, FirstNet may assess the proposed fees.
(2) Should NTIA make one of the determinations listed in paragraph (c)(2) or (3) of this section, NTIA will disapprove FirstNet's proposed fees, and FirstNet may not assess those proposed fees.
(e)
(f)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our April 7, 2015, proposed rule to list the Big Sandy crayfish (
We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before January 14, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615; or facsimile 413-253-8482. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
In our April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710), we proposed to list the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish as endangered species primarily due to the threats of land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrade the stream habitat required by both species, and the effects of small population size. During the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule, we received requests to extend the comment period beyond the June 8, 2015, closing date. For rulemaking and financial efficiency, we declined to extend the comment period at that time because we were already planning to reopen the comment period in the fall of 2015 to make available the results of rangewide surveys that would be conducted for each species in the summer of 2015. The final reports for the 2015 summer surveys are now
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish, or information regarding the species' biology, status, distribution, and habitat, refer to the proposed rule published in the
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposal to list the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish that published in the
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (80 FR 18710) during the initial comment period from April 7, 2015, to June 8, 2015, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the previous comment period, and we will consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed listing, will be available for public inspection on
The primary authors of this notice are staff members in the Endangered Species Program, Northeast Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) are sponsoring a public meeting on January 19, 2016. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 37th Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Budapest, Hungary, February 21-25, 2016. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and the Food and Drug Administration recognize the importance of providing interested parties with the opportunity to obtain background information on the 37th Session of the CCMAS and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 19, 2016, from 10:00-11:30 a.m.
The public meeting will take place at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 107-A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 37th Session of CCMAS will be accessible via the Internet at the following address:
Dr. Gregory O. Noonan, U.S. Delegate to the 37th Session of the CCMAS invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 37th Session of CCMAS by conference call please use the call-in-number listed below:
Call-in-Number: 1-888-844-9904.
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing
About the 37th Session Of CCMAS: Gregory O. Noonan, Ph.D., Research Chemist, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: (240) 402-2250, Fax: (301) 436-2634, Email:
About The Public Meeting: Marie Maratos, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250. Phone: (202) 205-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157, Email:
The Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.
The CCMAS is responsible for defining the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling; serving as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories; specifying, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by other bodies reference methods of analysis and sampling; considering, amending, and endorsing, appropriate to codex standards which are geniunly applicable to a number of foods; methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, (except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives, do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee); elaborating sampling plans and procedures; considering specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and defining procedures, protocols, guidelines, or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.
The Committee is hosted by Hungary.
The following items on the Agenda for the 37th Session of CCMAS will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Committee Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the January 19, 2016 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 37th Session of CCMAS, Gregory Noonan (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), is sponsoring a public meeting on January 14, 2016. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 22nd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Melbourne, Australia, February 6-12, 2016. The Under Secretary for Food Safety recognizes the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 22nd Session of the CCFICS and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 2016 from 2-4 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Jamie L. Whitten Building, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 22nd Session of the CCFICS will be accessible via the Internet at the following address:
Mary Stanley, U.S. Delegate to the 22nd Session of the CCFICS invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 22nd Session of the CCFICS by conference call, please use the call-in-number and participant code listed below.
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing
Phone: (202) 720-0287, Fax: (202) 720-4929, Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The CCFICS is responsible for:
(a) Developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems with a view to harmonizing methods and procedures that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices, and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs;
(b) Developing principles and guidelines for the application of measures by the competent authorities of exporting and importing countries to provide assurance where necessary that foodstuffs comply with requirements, especially statutory health requirements;
(c) Developing guidelines for the utilization, as and when appropriate, of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform with requirements and to promote the recognition of these systems in facilitating trade in food products under bilateral/multilateral arrangements by countries;
(d) Developing guidelines and criteria with respect to format, declarations and language of such official certificates as countries may require with a view towards international harmonization;
(e) Making recommendations for information exchange in relation to food import/export control;
(f) Consulting as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspection and certification systems; and
(g) Considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to food inspection and certification systems.
The Committee is hosted by Australia.
The following items on the Agenda for the 22nd Session of CCFICS will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Committee Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the January 14, 2016 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Mary Stanley, U.S. Delegate for the 22nd Session of the CCFICS (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The Census Bureau produces statistics used to monitor activity in the large and dynamic construction industry. Given the importance of this industry, several of the statistical series have been designated by the Office of Management and Budget as Principal Economic Indicators. Two such indicators are directly dependent on the key estimates from the BPS: (1) New Residential Construction (which includes Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits, Housing Starts, and Housing Completions), and (2) New Residential Sales. These statistics help state, local, and federal governments, as well as private industry, analyze this important sector of the economy. The building permit series are available monthly based on a sample of building permit offices, and annually based on the entire universe of permit offices. Published data from the survey can be found on the Census Bureau's Web site at
The Census Bureau collects these data primarily by mail using the Form C-404 or online using an online version of the same questionnaire. Some data are also collected via receipt of electronic files. Form C-404 collects information on changes to the geographic coverage of the permit-issuing place, the number, and valuation of new residential housing units authorized by building permits, and additional information on residential permits valued at $1 million or more. The form is titled “Report of Building or Zoning Permits Issued for New Privately-Owned Housing Units.”
The Census Bureau uses the Form C-404 to collect data that provide estimates of the number and valuation of new residential housing units authorized by building permits. About one-half of the permit offices are requested to report monthly. The remaining offices are surveyed once per year. We use the data, a component of the Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators, to estimate the number of housing units authorized, started, completed, and sold (single-family only). In addition, the Census Bureau uses the detailed geographic data in the development of annual population estimates that are used by government agencies to allocate funding and other resources to local areas, inform policy, and aid in city planning. Policymakers, planners, businesses, and others use the detailed geographic data to monitor growth and plan for local services, and to develop production and marketing plans. The BPS is the only source of statistics on residential construction for states, counties, and smaller geographic areas. Because building permits are public records, we can release data for individual jurisdictions, and annual data are published for every permit-issuing jurisdiction.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 23, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued its final judgment
Eve Wang, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6231.
Subsequent to the publication of the
On June 17, 2013, the CIT issued
On July 2, 2014, the CIT sustained in part, and remanded in part the Department's first remand redetermination.
On April 22, 2015, the CIT issued its decision in
On November 23, 2015, the CIT issued its decision in
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, the Department is amending the
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation pending the expiration of the period of appeal or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
Since the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 735(d), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 12, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from Brazil for the period November 1, 2013 through November 9, 2013.
Tyler Weinhold 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) 482-1121 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On August 12, 2015, the Department published the
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
As noted in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. On May 6, 2003, the Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation.
As this order has been revoked in full, and the suspension of liquidation of entries of PET film from Brazil has been lifted, we do not intend to issue cash deposit instructions.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect landings and socioeconomic data from recreational anglers in the U.S. Virgin Islands. This data collection will assist in creating and utilizing an appropriate methodology for future sampling of this segment of these fisheries and to assist in the development of management proposals. In addition, the information will be used to satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12898, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of standard ex-vessel prices.
NMFS publishes standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish and halibut for the calculation of the observer fee under the North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program (Observer Program). This notice is intended to provide information to vessel owners, processors, registered buyers, and other participants about the standard ex-vessel prices that will be used to calculate the observer fee liability for landings of groundfish and halibut made in 2016. NMFS will send invoices to processors and registered buyers subject to the fee by January 15, 2017. Fees are due to NMFS on or before February 15, 2017.
Effective January 1, 2016.
For general questions about the observer fee and standard ex-vessel prices, contact Sally Bibb at 907-586-7389. For questions about the fee billing process, contact Kristie Balovich at 907-586-7419. Additional information about the Observer Program is available on NMFS Alaska Region's Web site at
The Observer Program deploys NMFS-certified observers (observers) who collect information necessary for the conservation and management of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish and halibut fisheries. Fishery managers use information collected by observers to monitor quotas, manage groundfish and prohibited species catch, and document and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected information for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research.
The Observer Program is divided into two observer coverage categories—the partial observer coverage category and the full observer coverage category. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors are included in one of these two categories. The partial observer coverage category includes vessels and processors that are not required to have an observer at all times; the full observer coverage category includes vessels and processors required to have all of their fishing and processing operations off Alaska observed. Vessels and processors in the full coverage category arrange and pay for observer services from a permitted observer provider. Observer coverage for the partial coverage category is funded through a system of fees based on the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut.
The objective of the observer fee assessment is to levy a fee on all landings accruing against a Federal total allowable catch (TAC) for groundfish or a commercial halibut quota made by vessels that are subject to Federal regulations and not included in the full coverage category. A fee is only assessed on landings of groundfish from vessels designated on a Federal Fisheries Permit or from vessels landing individual fishing quota (IFQ) or community development quota (CDQ) halibut or IFQ sablefish. Within the subset of vessels subject to the observer fee, only landings accruing against the Federal TAC are included in the fee assessment. A table with additional information about which landings are and are not subject to the observer fee is in NMFS regulations at § 679.55(c) and is on page 2 of an informational bulletin titled “Observer Fee Collection” on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
A fee equal to 1.25 percent of the ex-vessel value is assessed on the landings of groundfish and halibut subject to the fee. Ex-vessel value is determined by multiplying the standard price for groundfish by the round weight equivalent for each species, gear, and port combination, and the standard price for halibut by the headed and gutted weight equivalent. NMFS will assess each landing report submitted via eLandings and each manual landing entered into the IFQ landing database and determine if the landing is subject to the observer fee and, if it is, which groundfish in the landing are subject to the observer fee. All IFQ or CDQ halibut in a landing subject to the observer fee will be assessed as part of the fee liability. For any groundfish or halibut subject to the observer fee, NMFS will apply the appropriate standard ex-vessel prices for the species, gear type, and port, and calculate the observer fee liability associated with the landing.
Processors and registered buyers access the landing-specific, observer fee liability information through NMFS Web Application (
The intent of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS is for vessel owners to split the fee liability 50/50 with the processor or registered buyer. While vessels and processors are responsible for their portion of the fee, the owner of a shoreside processor or a stationary floating processor and the registered buyer are responsible for collecting the fee, including the vessel's portion of the fee, and remitting the full fee liability to NMFS.
NMFS will send invoices to processors and registered buyers for their total fee liability, which is determined by the sum of the fees reported for each landing for that processor or registered buyer for the prior calendar year, by January 15, 2017. Processors and registered buyers must pay the fees to NMFS using NMFS Web Application by February 15, 2017. Processors and registered buyers have access to this system through a User ID and password issued by NMFS. Instructions for electronic payment will be provided on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
This notice provides the standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish and halibut species subject to the observer fee in 2016. Data sources for ex-vessel prices are:
• For groundfish other than sablefish IFQ and sablefish accruing against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the State of Alaska's Commercial Fishery Entry Commission's (CFEC) gross revenue data, which are based on the Commercial Operator Annual Report (COAR) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) fish tickets; and
• For halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and sablefish accruing against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the IFQ Buyer Report that is submitted annually to NMFS under § 679.5(l)(7)(i).
The standard prices in this notice were calculated using applicable guidance for protecting confidentiality of data submitted to or collected by NMFS. NMFS does not publish any price information that would permit the identification of an individual or business. At least four different vessels must make landings of a species with a particular gear type at a particular port in order for NMFS to publish that price data for that species-gear-port combination. Similarly, at least three different processors in a particular port must purchase a species harvested with a particular gear type in order for NMFS to publish a price for that species-gear-port combination. Price data that is confidential because fewer than four vessels or three processors contributed data to a particular species-gear-port combination has been aggregated to protect confidential data.
Table 1 shows the groundfish species standard ex-vessel prices for 2016. These prices are based on the CFEC gross revenue data, which are based on landings data from ADF&G fish tickets and information from the COAR. The COAR contains statewide buying and production information, and is considered the most complete routinely collected information to determine the ex-vessel value of groundfish harvested from waters off Alaska.
The standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish were calculated by adding ex-vessel value from the CFEC gross revenue files for 2012, 2013, and 2014 by species, port, and gear category, and adding the volume (weight) the CFEC gross revenue files for 2012, 2013, and 2014 by species, port, and gear category, and then dividing total ex-vessel value over the 3-year period in each category by total volume over the 3-year period in each category. This calculation results in an average ex-vessel price per pound by species, port, and gear category for the 3-year period. Three gear categories were used for the standard ex-vessel prices: (1) Non-trawl gear, including hook-and-line, pot, jig, troll, and others (Non-Trawl); (2) non-pelagic trawl gear (NPT); and (3) pelagic trawl gear (PTR).
CFEC ex-vessel value data are available in the fall of the year following the year the fishing occurred. Thus, it is not possible to base ex-vessel fee liabilities on standard prices that are less than 2 years old.
If a particular groundfish species is not listed in Table 1, the standard ex-vessel price for a species group, if it exists in the management area, will be used. If price data for a particular species remained confidential once aggregated to the ALL level, data is aggregated by species group (BSAI Skate; Flathead Sole; GOA Deep-water Flatfish; GOA Shallow-water Flatfish; GOA Skate, Other; and Other Rockfish). Standard prices for the groundfish species groups are shown in Table 2.
If a port-level price does not meet the confidentiality requirements, the data are aggregated by port group. Port-group data for Southeast Alaska (SEAK) and the Eastern GOA excluding Southeast Alaska (EGOAxSE) also are presented separately when price data are available. Port-group data is then aggregated by regulatory area in the GOA (Eastern GOA, Central GOA, and Western GOA) and by subarea in the BSAI (BS subarea and AI subarea). If confidentiality requirements are still not met by aggregating prices across ports at these levels, the prices are aggregated at the level of BSAI or GOA, then statewide (AK) and ports outside of Alaska (OTAK), and finally all ports, including those outside of Alaska (“ALL”).
Standard prices are presented separately for non-pelagic trawl and pelagic trawl when non-confidential data is available. NMFS also calculated prices for a “Pelagic Trawl/Non-pelagic Trawl Combined” category that can be used when combining trawl price data for landings of a species in a particular port or port group will not violate confidentiality requirements. Creating this standard price category allows NMFS to assess a fee on 2016 landings of some of the species with pelagic trawl gear based on a combined trawl gear price for the port or port group.
If no standard ex-vessel price is listed for a species or species group and gear category combination in Table 1, Table 2, or Table 3, no fee will be assessed on that landing. Volume and value data for that species will be added to the standard ex-vessel prices in future years, if that data becomes available and display of a standard ex-vessel price meets confidentiality requirements.
Table 3 shows the observer fee standard ex-vessel prices for halibut and sablefish. These standard prices are calculated as a single annual average price, by port or port group. Volume and ex-vessel value data collected on the 2015 IFQ Buyer Report for landings made from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, were used to calculate the standard ex-vessel prices for the 2016 observer fee liability for halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and sablefish landings that accrue against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that the Exempted Fishing Permit that would facilitate the harvest of Atlantic herring research set-aside quota warrants further consideration. The Exempted Fishing Permit would authorize federally permitted Atlantic herring vessels to harvest Atlantic Herring research set-aside quota without possession limit after the possession limit in herring management areas has been reduced to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) for commercial herring vessels. It would also allow vessels to harvest Atlantic herring research set-aside quota during Area 1A and 1B seasonal closures. Vessels working with researchers for approved projects will need the Exempted Fishing Permits to harvest herring that will generate funds to pay for the research.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2015.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel Luers, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8457,
The subject Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) would facilitate herring research set-aside (RSA) compensation fishing in support of project(s) funded under the 2016-2018 herring RSA competition. Proposals are currently under review. One project would examine river herring portside sampling and an avoidance program while the other would investigate mixing of the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic herring resource with the Scotian shelf Atlantic herring resource using genetic analysis techniques. Consistent with previous herring RSA compensation fishing EFPs, vessels would be authorized to harvest herring RSA quota after a herring management area quota has been caught and the fishery is limited to a 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) herring possession limit per trip, as well as allow vessels to harvest RSA quota during the seasonal closures in Management Areas 1A and 1B from January through May and January through April, respectively. Grant recipients will be required to meet all EFP application requirements prior to the issuance of the subject EFPs.
If approved, the applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to NMFS Alaska Region, Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or
The Crab Rationalization (CR) Program is a limited-access system that allocates crab managed under the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. The CR Program currently includes a comprehensive economic data collection program requiring participants to complete annual Economic Data Reports (EDRs). These EDRs are intended to aid the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council and NMFS in assessing the success of the CR Program and developing amendments to the FMP to mitigate any unintended consequences of the CR Program.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is the Data Collection Agent for the CR Program. The CR Crab EDR program collects annually reported cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data from harvest and processing sector participants in the CR fisheries. This
Participation in the CR Crab EDR program is mandatory under Federal fisheries regulations 50 CFR part 680.6 for all active vessel and processing sector participants in the CR Program fisheries.
Information may be submitted online, by fax, and by mail.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by “Procurement Contracts,” and Collection Number 3038-0031, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Sonda Owens, Financial Management Branch, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; phone: (202) 418-5182; fax: (202) 418-5414; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With respect to the following collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality of, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
The information collection consists of procurement activities relating to solicitations, amendments to solicitations, requests for quotations, construction contracts, awards of contracts, performance bonds, and payment information for individuals (vendors) or contractors engaged in providing supplies or services.
The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), 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 January 14, 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 Herman Bounds, 202-219-7039.
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.
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Deputy Director for Policy and Research, delegated the duties of the Director, of the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) announces the Institute's intent to fund three additional grant awards under the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Program, specifically under the Supporting Early Learning from Preschool Through Early Elementary School Grades topic. The Institute takes this action because of the number of high-quality applications received and the fact that funding is available in fiscal year (FY) 2016 to support these additional grant awards. The Institute expects to use an estimated $1.8 million for the three additional awards in FY 2016.
Dr. Allen Ruby. Telephone: (202) 219-1591 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On April 15, 2015, the Institute published a notice inviting applications in the
In response to that notice and the accompanying Request for Applications (RFA), the Institute received seven high-quality applications for grants under the Supporting Early Learning from Preschool Through Early Elementary School Grades topic. All seven applications received high scores by peer reviewers. Because sufficient funds are available, the Institute intends to fund all seven applications.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 9501
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 16, 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 Kashka Kubdzela via email at
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
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is a federally authorized survey of student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 in various subject areas, such as mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography, economics, technology and engineering literacy (TEL), and the arts. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (Public Law 107-279 Title III, section 303) requires the assessment to collect data on specified student groups and characteristics, including information organized by race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, disability, and limited English proficiency. It requires fair and accurate presentation of achievement data and permits the collection of background, noncognitive, or descriptive information that is related to academic achievement and aids in fair reporting of results. The intent of the law is to provide representative sample data on student achievement for the nation, the states, and subpopulations of students and to monitor progress over time. The nature of NAEP is that burden alternates from a relatively low burden in national-level administration years to a substantial burden increase in state-level administration years when the sample has to allow for estimates for individual states and some of the large urban districts. This submission requests OMB's approval for main NAEP assessments in 2017, 2018, and 2019, including operational, pilot, and special studies. The NAEP results will be reported to the public through the Nation's Report Card as well as other online NAEP tools.
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 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
Take notice that on December 9, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2015), Powder River Crude Services, LLC and Powder River Express, LLC filed a petition requesting a declaratory order approving the overall tariff and rate structure, open season procedures, prorationing provisions, and other terms of service associated with a new crude oil pipeline in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. The pipeline is intended to connect crude oil production areas with downstream markets, including rail and other pipeline interconnections, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 31, 2015.
On June 19, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-520-000 requesting authorization pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Triad Expansion Project (Project), and would deliver an additional 180,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to meet the needs of a new natural gas-fired power plant to be constructed in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
On July 6, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Tennessee would construct about 7.0 miles of new 36-inch-diameter looping
On August 5, 2015, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's
Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Commission staff will meet with Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) in Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss matters related to the filings submitted by PSCo and Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company LP in the above-captioned proceedings, including matters related to: (1) The cost-based rate cap for energy provided
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
December 17, 2015, 10 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
* NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Southwest Louisiana Supply Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in Madison, Franklin, Richland, and Rapides Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before January 11, 2016.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 26, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP16-12-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Tennessee provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16-12-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The purpose of the Southwest Louisiana Supply Project is to provide 295,000 dekatherms per day of firm natural gas capacity to Tennessee's 800 Line. The Southwest Louisiana Supply Project would consist of construction and modification of the following facilities:
• Construction of a new 2.4-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter lateral pipeline to be known as the Delhi North Lateral and two new meter station interconnects to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline Meter Station (MEP Meter Station) and the Gulf Crossing Pipeline Meter Station (Gulf Crossing Meter Station) in Madison Parish, Louisiana;
• construction of a new 1.4-mile-long-30-inch-diameter lateral pipeline to be known as the Delhi South Latera, three new meter station interconnects to be known as the Enable Midstream Partners Meter Station (Enable Meter Station), the Gulf South Pipeline Meter Station (Gulf South Meter Station), and the Tiger Pipeline Meter Station (Tiger Meter Station) in Franklin and Richland Parishes, Louisiana;
• construction of a new compressor station to be known as the Delhi Compressor Station 836A in Franklin, Parish, Louisiana; and
• modifications at the Alexandria Compressor Station, including turbine replacement in Rapides Parish, Louisiana.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb approximately 108.4 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, Tennessee would maintain about 76.5 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on December 8, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2015), Chicap Pipe Line Company (Chicap) filed a petition requesting a declaratory order approving the overall tariff and rate structure, prorationing provisions, and other terms of service for the expansion of Chicap's existing Blue Island Lateral crude oil pipeline (Project). The Project is intended to increase flow rates and add new bi-directional capability between Blue Island, Illinois to Mokena, Illinois, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 8, 2016.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 24, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2015), Buckeye Pipe Line Transportation, LLC filed a petition requesting a declaratory order approving the overall tariff and rate structure, prorationing provisions, and other terms of service for a new interstate common carrier pipeline (Project). The Project is expected to transport refined petroleum products from Michigan and Ohio, to destination points in Ohio and Pennsylvania and will obtain the additional capacity through the use of underutilized leased capacity, construction of new pipelines and tanks, upgrades to existing pipeline manifolds, replacement of certain mainline pumps, and a reconfiguration of existing pipeline, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the SAB Economy-Wide Modeling Panel. The SAB Staff Office also announces a public face-to-face meeting of the SAB Economy-Wide Modeling Panel.
The public teleconferences will be held on March 10, 2016 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time) and May 19, 2016 from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. (Eastern Time). The public face-to-face meeting will be held on July 19-20, 2016 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day (Eastern Time).
The teleconferences will be held by telephone only. The face-to-face meeting will take place at George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, Convening Center A and B, 950 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20052. The public can view the July 19-20, 2016 face-to-face meeting via a non-interactive, live webcast that will be broadcast on the internet. The connection information to view the webcast will be provided on the meeting Web page at the time of the meeting. The meeting Web page may be found by going to
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding the public teleconferences or public meeting may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2073 or via email at
Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical peer review, advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for EPA actions. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Economy-Wide Modeling Panel will hold two public teleconferences to discuss its draft responses to charge questions from EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and the Office of Air and Radiation on the role of economy-wide modeling in generating estimates of social costs and benefits for air regulations at EPA. After holding teleconferences on March 10, 2016 (3 p.m.-6 p.m.) and May 19, 2016 (1 p.m.-4 p.m.) to discuss its draft responses to charge questions on social costs and benefits, the SAB Economy-Wide Modeling Panel will hold a face-to-face meeting on July 19-20, 2016 to deliberate on charge questions on analyzing economic impacts and comparing estimates of social costs, benefits, and economic impacts using economy-wide modeling. Some meeting time at the July 19-20, 2016 meeting may also be devoted to discussion of draft responses to EPA's charge questions on social costs and benefits. The EPA-authored white papers on economic impacts analysis and the comparison of estimates of social costs, benefits and impacts using economy-wide modeling will be provided to the Panel and the public prior to the July 19-20, 2016 face-to-face meeting. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Background information on the SAB Economy-Wide Modeling Panel can be found at
Availability of the meeting materials: Agendas, EPA's forthcoming white papers and other meeting materials will be posted on the SAB Web site prior to the teleconferences and face-to-face meeting. To find these materials, go to
Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the Panel and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB panel to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Stallworth at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before January 14, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0505, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.
1.
2.
This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from October 1, 2015 to October 30, 2015, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
For the 47 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
For the 38 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on the renewal of the information collections described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper or Manuel E. Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:
1.
2.
a. FDIC-Supervised Institutions with Assets of $1 Billion or More.
b. FDIC-Supervised Institutions with Assets of $500 Million or More but Less than $1 Billion.
c. FDIC-Supervised Institutions with Assets Less than $500 Million.
3.
Section 324.203(a)(1) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have clearly defined policies and procedures for determining which trading assets and trading liabilities are trading positions and specifies the factors a FDIC-supervised institutions must take into account in drafting those policies and procedures. Section 324.203(a)(2) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have clearly defined trading and hedging strategies for trading positions that are approved by senior management and specifies what the strategies must articulate. Section 324.203(b)(1) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have clearly defined policies and procedures for actively managing all covered positions and specifies the minimum requirements for those policies and procedures. Sections 324.203(c)(4) through 324.203(c)(10) require the annual review of internal models and specify certain requirements for those models. Section 324.203(d) requires the internal audit group of a FDIC-supervised institution to prepare an annual report to the board of directors on the effectiveness of controls supporting the market risk measurement systems.
Section 324.204(b) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to conduct quarterly backtesting. Section 324.205(a)(5) requires institutions to demonstrate to the FDIC the appropriateness of proxies used to capture risks within value-at-risk models. Section 324.205(c) requires institutions to develop, retain, and make available to the FDIC value-at-risk and profit and loss information on sub-portfolios for two years. Section 324.206(b)(3) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have policies and procedures that describe how they determine the period of significant financial stress used to calculate the institution's stressed value-at-risk models and to obtain prior FDIC approval for any material changes to these policies and procedures.
Section 324.207(b)(1) details requirements applicable to a FDIC-supervised institution when the FDIC-supervised institution uses internal models to measure the specific risk of certain covered positions. Section 324.208 requires FDIC-supervised institutions to obtain prior written FDIC approval for incremental risk modeling. Section 324.209(a) requires prior FDIC approval for the use of a comprehensive risk measure. Section 324.209(c)(2) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to retain and report the results of supervisory stress testing. Section 324.210(f)(2)(i) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to document an internal analysis of the risk characteristics of each securitization position in order to demonstrate an understanding of the position. Section 324.212 requires quarterly quantitative disclosures, annual qualitative disclosures, and a formal disclosure policy approved by the board of directors that addresses the approach for determining the market risk disclosures it makes.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a continuing information collection, titled, “Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” (3064-0189), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments must be received by February 16, 2016.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, you may send a copy of your comments: By mail to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by facsimile to 202.395.6974, Attention: Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer.
You can request additional information from Gary Kuiper, 202.898.3877, or Manny Cabeza, 202.898.3767, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., MB-3016 Washington, DC 20429. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the FDIC's Web site (
The FDIC is requesting comment on the following changes to the information collection:
On October 15, 2012, the FDIC published in the
Consistent with past practice, the FDIC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered banks and to provide forward-looking information to the FDIC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The FDIC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered bank. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered bank's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.
The FDIC recognizes that many covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit reports using the Board's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) reporting form, FR Y-14A. The FDIC also recognizes the Board has modified the FR Y-14A, and the FDIC will keep its reporting requirements as similar as possible with the Board's FR Y-14A in order to minimize burden on affected institutions. Therefore, the FDIC is revising its reporting requirements to remain consistent with the Board's FR Y-14A for covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.
The proposed revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of clarifying instructions, adding data items, deleting data items, and redefining existing data items. The proposed revisions also include a shift of the as-of date in accordance with modifications to the FDIC's stress testing rule.
The proposed changes would (1) increase consistency between the DFAST-14A with the FR Y-14A, CALL Report, FFIEC 101, and FFIEC 102; (2) remove the requirement to calculate tier 1 common capital and the tier 1 common ratio; and (3) shift the as-of dates by one quarter in accordance with the modifications to the stress test rules. Furthermore, the FDIC understands that the Board is currently collecting information for the Summary Schedule via XML technology, and the FDIC would use a similar format to enhance consistency and reduce regulatory burden. Technical details on these forms would be provided separately.
This schedule would be removed in accordance with the proposed revisions to eliminate use of the tier 1 common ratio,
This schedule would be modified to increase consistency with the FFIEC 102. Specifically, the items of the existing market risk-weighted asset portion would be replaced with the appropriate items from the FFIEC 102.
The FDIC proposes removing certain items related to tier 1 common capital,
This schedule would be removed to reduce reporting burden,
This schedule would be removed to reduce reporting burden,
In order to fully align the schedule with the stress scenarios, the beta information would be collected according to the scenario instead of the current “normal environment” requirement,
This schedule would be removed to reduce reporting burden
The FDIC estimates the burden of this collection as follows:
The FDIC recognizes that the Board has estimated 71,709 hours for bank holding companies to prepare the Summary, Macro scenario, Operational risk, Regulatory capital transitions, and Regulatory capital instruments for the FR Y-14A. The FDIC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14A reporting templates will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FDIC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the FDIC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
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 January 8, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 8, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
Notice of these conference calls is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the schedule for a series of conference calls, supplemented by Web meetings, for two task groups of the Green Building Advisory Committee. The conference calls are open for the public to listen in. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under Supplementary Information.
The
The
Mr. Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-219-1121 (note: this is not a toll-free number). Additional information about the Committee, including meeting materials and updates on the task groups and their schedules, will be available on-line at
The
The conference calls will focus on how the task groups can best refine these motions into consensus recommendations from each group to the full Committee, which will in turn decide whether to proceed with formal advice to GSA based upon these recommendations. Additional background information and updates will be posted on GSA's Web site at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Premarket Studies of Implantable Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical (MIGS) Devices.” This leapfrog guidance document was developed to notify manufacturers of the recommended non-clinical and clinical studies to support a premarket approval application (PMA) for implantable MIGS devices.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
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.”
•
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Michelle Tarver, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2504, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5620.
This guidance document recommends non-clinical and clinical studies to support a PMA for implantable MIGS devices. Glaucoma is a progressive condition that damages the optic nerve of the eye, is associated with elevated intraocular pressure, and leads to irreversible vision loss. It is the second leading cause of visual disability and blindness in the world, with 1 in 40 adults over 40 years of age suffering from glaucoma having some visual loss. Current surgical treatments are aimed at reducing intraocular pressure and often reserved for moderate to severe disease. During the past decade, novel medical devices, called MIGS devices, have emerged. These devices are designed to treat less severe glaucoma by enhancing physiological aqueous outflow with an approach that causes minimal ocular trauma.
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Premarket Studies of Implantable Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical (MIGS) Devices.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
The guidance document “Premarket Studies of Implantable Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical (MIGS) Devices” refers to previously approved information collections found in FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts B and E are approved under OMB control number 0910-0231 and the collections of information in the guidance document entitled “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” are approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Head Lice Infestation: Developing Drugs for Topical Treatment.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment of head lice infestation. This draft guidance addresses the Agency's current thinking regarding the overall development program and clinical trial designs of drugs to support approval of an indication for topical treatment of head lice infestation. The information presented will help sponsors plan clinical trials, design clinical protocols, and conduct and appropriately monitor clinical trials.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 14, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• 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.”
•
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Bldg., 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Strother D. Dixon, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5168,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Head Lice Infestation: Developing Drugs for Topical Treatment.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment of head lice infestation. This draft guidance addresses the Agency's current thinking regarding the overall development program and clinical trial designs of drugs to support approval of an indication for topical treatment of head lice infestation. The information presented will help sponsors plan clinical trials, design clinical protocols, and conduct and appropriately monitor clinical trials.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on developing drugs for the topical treatment of head lice infestation. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The collections of information for prescription drug product labeling in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing 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 16, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA 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: (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.
In the
Most of the information collection burden resulting from the final rule, as calculated in table 1 of the final rule (69 FR at 9149), was a one-time burden that does not occur after the rule's compliance date of April 26, 2006. In addition, some of the information collection burden estimated in the final rule is now covered in other OMB approved information collection packages for FDA. However, parties may continue to seek an exemption from the bar code requirement under certain, limited circumstances. Section 201.25(d) (21 CFR 201.25(d)) requires submission of a written request for an exemption and describes the contents of such requests. Based on the number of exemption requests we have received, we estimate that approximately 2 exemption requests may be submitted annually, and that each exemption request will require 24 hours to complete. This would result in an annual reporting burden of 48 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for TRIVASCULAR OVATION ABDOMINAL STENT GRAFT 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 Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
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:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
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, TRIVASCULAR OVATION ABDOMINAL STENT GRAFT SYSTEM. TRIVASCULAR OVATION ABDOMINAL STENT GRAFT SYSTEM is indicated for the treatment of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms having vascular morphology suitable for endovascular repair. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for TRIVASCULAR OVATION ABDOMINAL STENT GRAFT SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 6,395,019) from TriVascular, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 20, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of TRIVASCULAR OVATION ABDOMINAL STENT GRAFT 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 TRIVASCULAR OVATION ABDOMINAL STENT GRAFT SYSTEM
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 1,802 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 VIZAMYL 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:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
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 VIZAMYL (flumetamol F18 injection). VIZAMYL is a radioactive diagnostic agent indicated for Positron Emission Tomography imaging of the brain to estimate β amyloid neuritic plaque density in adult patients with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer's disease or other causes of cognitive decline. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for VIZAMYL (U.S. Patent No. 7,270,800) from GE Healthcare Limited, 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 VIZAMYL 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 VIZAMYL is 1,541 days. Of this time, 1,176 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 365 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 951 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 of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled
The public workshop will be held on January 25, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public workshop by February 25, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, rm. 1503 (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to:
Rachel Goehe, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 66, Rm. 5533, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6565, email:
Warfarin, an oral vitamin K antagonist, is a commonly prescribed anticoagulant drug used to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. Warfarin inhibits the synthesis of clotting factors II, VII, IX, and X, in addition to the naturally occurring endogenous anticoagulant proteins C and S. The response of individual patients to warfarin is highly variable because of factors such as diet, age, and interaction with other drugs. As a consequence, it is important that warfarin dosage be tailored individually to maintain clinical benefit. The PT test is used to determine a patient's clotting time, which the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute defines as the time in seconds required for a fibrin clot to form in a plasma sample after tissue thromboplastin and an optimal amount of calcium chloride have been added to the sample. It is well-recognized that a PT result obtained with one test system cannot be compared to a PT result obtained with another test system because of the variety of thromboplastins used in different test systems. Therefore, PT test results are converted into a standardized unit known as the INR, which was adopted by the World Health Organization with the intent to reduce intersystem variation in test results. The INR result is used to monitor patients' response to warfarin.
POC PT/INR devices offer an alternative to laboratory-based testing and venipuncture, enabling a rapid INR determination from a finger stick sample of whole blood. POC devices can be
This public workshop will consist of presentations covering the topics listed in this document. Following the presentations, there will be a moderated panel discussion where participants will be asked to provide their perspectives. The workshop panel discussion will focus on identifying potential solutions to address the scientific and regulatory challenges associated with POC PT/INR devices. In advance of the meeting, FDA plans to post a discussion paper outlining FDA's current thinking on the various topics mentioned in the following list, and invite comment on this from the community.
Topics to be discussed at the public workshop include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Current regulatory process involved with the clearance of POC PT/INR devices.
• Current benefit/risk balance of POC PT/INR devices.
• Technological differences amongst marketed POC PT/INR devices, advantages and limitations of each technology, and comparability of test results obtained using different technologies.
• Challenges associated with correlating results from whole blood POC PT/INR devices to conventional plasma-based laboratory tests.
• Appropriate study design for validation and usability studies from the perspectives of the Agency, manufacturers and end users to help improve our understanding of the accuracy, reliability and safety of POC PT/INR devices.
• Types of quality control and the test system elements assessed by the controls.
• Challenges associated with different sample matrices (venous, fingerstick, arterial).
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Communication and Education, 301-796-5661, email:
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for RAXIBACUMAB 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 biological product.
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:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
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 biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological 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 biological 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 biologic product RAXIBACUMAB (raxibacumab). RAXIBACUMAB is indicated for treatment of adult and pediatric patients with inhalational anthrax due to
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RAXIBACUMAB is 3,465 days. Of this time, 2,154 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,311 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 412 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 of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility determinations for donors of HCT/Ps with recommendations for testing living donors for West Nile Virus (WNV). The draft guidance recommends the use of an FDA-licensed nucleic acid test (NAT) to test living donors of HCT/Ps for evidence of infection with WNV. The guidance does not provide recommendations regarding testing of cadaveric HCT/P donors for WNV. The draft guidance replaces the draft guidance entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” dated October 2013. The donor testing recommendations in the draft guidance, when finalized, will supplement the donor screening recommendations for WNV (which will remain in place) and supersede the “West Nile Virus (WNV)” section in Appendix 6 of the guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” dated August 2007 (2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance).
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 14, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jonathan McKnight, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility determinations for donors of HCT/Ps with recommendations for testing living donors for WNV. The draft guidance recommends an FDA-licensed NAT to test living donors of HCT/Ps for evidence of infection with WNV. The guidance does not provide recommendations regarding testing of cadaveric HCT/P donors for WNV. FDA believes that the use of an FDA-licensed NAT will reduce the risk of transmission of WNV from living donors of HCT/Ps and therefore recommends that you use an FDA-licensed NAT for testing living donors of HCT/Ps for infection with WNV. The 2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance indicated that FDA may recommend routine use of an appropriate, licensed donor screening test(s) to detect acute infections with WNV using NAT technology, once such tests were available.
In the
In the
The draft guidance announced in this notice replaces the October 2013 draft guidance and when finalized, will supplement sections IV.E. (recommendations 15 and 16), IV.F. (recommendation 5), and supersede the “West Nile Virus (WNV)” section in Appendix 6 of the 2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance.
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Draft Guidance for Industry.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Indian Health Service published a 30 day
To request additional information, please contact Tamara Clay by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Clinical Center, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours: 320.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
The meetings will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4245-DR), dated November 25, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 25, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Texas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of October 22-31, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Texas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bastrop, Brazoria, Caldwell, Comal, Galveston, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Hays, Hidalgo, Liberty, Navarro, Travis, Willacy, and Wilson Counties for Individual Assistance.
All areas within the State of Texas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Request for Applicants for Appointment to the Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy.
The National Fire Academy (Academy) is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board) to apply for appointment as identified in this notice. Pursuant to the
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST January 14, 2016.
The preferred method of submission is via email. However, applications may also be submitted by fax or mail. Please only submit by ONE of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kirby Kiefer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, National Fire Academy, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727-8998; telephone 301-447-1117; and email
The Board is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provision of the
Individuals who are interested in serving on the Board are invited to apply for consideration for appointment. There is no application form; however, a current resume will be required. Incomplete applications will not be considered. The appointment shall be for a term of up to three years. Individuals selected for appointment shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs), defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. Candidates selected for appointment will be required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450).
The Board shall meet as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not less than twice each fiscal year to address its objectives and duties. The Board will meet in person at least once each fiscal year with additional meetings held via teleconference. Board members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the Board. All travel for Board business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer. To the extent practical, Board members shall serve on any subcommittee that is established.
FEMA does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. FEMA strives to achieve a diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment actions.
Current DHS and FEMA employees, FEMA Disaster Assistance Employees, FEMA Reservists, and DHS and FEMA contractors and potential contractors will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for SGE appointments.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Territory of American Samoa (FEMA-4192-DR), dated September 10, 2014, and related determinations.
Effective Date: November 24, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act). Therefore, consistent with 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d), pertaining to insular areas, and the President's declaration letter dated September 10, 2014, Federal funds for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program are authorized at 100 percent of total eligible costs for the Territory of American Samoa. This cost share is effective as of the date of the President's major disaster declaration.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), OMB control number 1652-0040, abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This ICR involves three broad categories of affected populations operating under a security program: Aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and indirect air carriers. The collections of information that make up this ICR include security programs, security threat assessments (STA) on certain individuals, known shipper data via the Known Shipper Management System (KSMS), Indirect Air Carrier Management System (IACMS), and evidence of compliance recordkeeping. TSA seeks continued OMB approval in order to secure passenger aircraft carrying cargo as authorized in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
Send your comments by February 16, 2016.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA must proceed with this ICR in order to meet the Congressional mandates and continue to enforce current TSA regulations covering the acceptance, handling, and screening of cargo transported by air. The uninterrupted collection of this information will allow TSA to continue to ensure implementation of these vital security measures for the protection of the traveling public. TSA also is revising the collection to include information select regulated entities operating under certain amendments to their aircraft operator and foreign air carrier security programs must provide to TSA detailing screening volumes and the methodology utilized to arrive at these volumes, as well as demonstrating progress toward full compliance with the cargo security measures specified in such amendments.
This information collection requires the “regulated entities,” which includes aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and indirect air carriers (IACs), to collect certain information as part of the implementation of a standard security program, to submit modifications to the standard security program to TSA for approval, and update such programs as necessary. As part of these security programs, the regulated entities must also collect personal information and submit such information to TSA so that TSA may conduct STAs on individuals with unescorted access to cargo. This includes each individual who is a general partner, officer, or director of an IAC or an applicant to be an IAC, and certain owners of an IAC or an applicant to be an IAC; and any individual who has responsibility for screening cargo under 49 CFR parts 1544, 1546, or 1548.
Further, both companies and individuals whom aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and IACs have qualified to ship cargo on passenger aircraft, also referred to as “known shippers,” must submit information to TSA, This information is collected electronically through the KSMS. In accordance with TSA security program requirements, regulated entities may use an alternate manual submission method to identify known shippers.
Regulated entities must also enter into IACMS the information required from applicants requesting to be approved as IACs in accordance with 49 CFR 1548.7 and the information required for their IAC annual renewal. Regulated entities must also maintain records, including records pertaining to security programs, training, and compliance to demonstrate adherence with the regulatory requirements. These records must be made available to TSA upon request. The forms used in this collection of information include the Aviation Security Known Shipper Verification Form and the Security Threat Assessment Application.
Finally, select regulated entities operating under certain amendments to their aircraft operator and foreign air carrier security programs must provide information detailing screening volumes and the methodology utilized to arrive at these volumes, as well as demonstrating progress toward full compliance with the cargo security measures specified in such amendments. In light of current security threats, the collection of this information is critical.
TSA estimates the hour burden for regulated entities associated with initial application of security programs via IACMS to be 4 hours for each of 340 average annual new entrants for an average annual hour burden of 1360 hours.
For the STA requirement, based on a 15-minute estimate for each of the average 98,500 annual responses, TSA estimates that the average annual burden will be 24,625 hours.
For the KSMS, given that the IAC or aircraft operator must input a name, address, and telephone number, TSA estimates it will take 2 minutes for the 476,167 electronic submissions for a total annual burden of 15,872 hours. Also for KSMS, TSA estimates it will take one hour for the 8,000 manual submissions for a total annual burden of 8,000 hours.
TSA estimates the hour burden associated with the security program renewals via IACMS to be 4 hours for each of the 4,100 IACs for an average annual hour burden of 16,400 hours. TSA estimates one percent of IACs (41) will file an appeal of rejected or incomplete renewals at 5 hours per appeal for an average annual hour burden of 205 hours.
For the record keeping requirement, based on a 5-minute estimate for each of the 98,500 annual responses, TSA estimates that the total average annual burden will be 8,208 hours.
For the cargo screening reports to be submitted by select aircraft operators and foreign air carriers operating under amendments to their security programs, TSA estimates that 10 air carriers will compile the required cargo screening information at an estimated time of one hour each per week with estimated annual burden of 520 hours (10 × 52).
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
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.
The
After the family is issued a HCV to search for a unit pursuant to attending a briefing and receiving an information packet, the family must complete and submit to the PHA a Request for Tenancy Approval when it finds a unit which is suitable for its needs. Initial PHAs will use a standardized form to submit portability information to the receiving PHA who will also use the form for monthly portability billing. PHAs and owners will enter into housing assistance payments (HAP) contract each providing information on rents, payments, certifications, notifications, and owner agreement in a form acceptable to the PHA. A tenancy addendum is included in the HAP contract as well as incorporated in the lease between the owner and the family. Families that participate in the Homeownership option will execute a statement regarding their responsibilities and execute contracts of sale including an additional contract of sale for new construction units. PHAs participating in the project-based voucher (PBV) program will enter into Agreements with developing owners, HAP contracts with the existing and New Construction/Rehabilitation owners, Statement of Family Responsibility with the family and a lease addendum will be provided for execution between the family and the owner.
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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
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.
The
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 Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
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.
New section 36 requires HUD to establish standards and definitions for the information to be collected by state agencies and to provide states with technical assistance in establishing systems to compile and submit such information and, in coordination with other federal agencies administering housing programs, establish procedures to minimize duplicative reporting requirements for properties assisted under multiple housing programs. In 2010, OMB approved the first collection instrument used for the collection of LIHTC household information (expiration date 05/31/2013). HUD used the previously approved form to collect data on LIHTC tenants in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The form was approved with minor changes in 2013 with an expiration of 6/30/2016. Renewal of this form is required for HUD to remain in compliance with the statute.
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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
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.
The
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.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On November 20, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Gila River Indian Community leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into the following types of leases without BIA approval: Commercial leases and solar resource leases.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, MS-4642-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership) Act of 2012 (the Act) makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department's leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Gila River Indian Community.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Just like BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Gila River Indian Community.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Budget, Department of the Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary, and Department of the Interior (DOI), announces the proposed extension of a public information collection required by the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Budget has submitted a request for renewal of approval of this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and requests public comments on this submission.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection request, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by January 14, 2016, in order to be assured of consideration.
Send your written comments by facsimile (202) 395-5806 or email (
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument should be directed to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of Budget, Attn. Dionna Kiernan, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7413 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Requests for additional information may also be emailed to
Public Law 97-258 (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), as amended, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, was designed by Congress to help local governments recover some of the expenses they incur in providing services on public lands. These local governments receive funds under various Federal land payment programs such as the National Forest Revenue Act, the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, and the Taylor Grazing Act. PILT payments supplement the payments local governments receive under these other programs. The FY 2016 budget proposes a one-year extension of the current PILT program, maintaining the existing formula for calculating payments to counties. That proposal is currently pending before Congress. This renewal authority is being done in anticipation of reauthorization by Congress.
The PILT Act requires the Governor of each State to furnish the Department of the Interior with a listing of payments disbursed to local governments by the States on behalf of the Federal Government under 12 statutes described in Section 6903 of 31 U.S.C. The Department of the Interior uses the amounts reported by the States to
In fiscal year 2004, administrative authority for the PILT program was transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Applicable DOI regulations pertaining to the PILT program to be administered by the Office of the Secretary were published as a final rule in the
(1) Title:
OMB Control Number: 1093-0005.
Current Expiration Date: 12/31/2015.
Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Affected Entities: State Governments.
Estimated annual number of responses: 45.
Frequency of response: Annually.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
(2) Annual reporting and record keeping burden.
Total Annual Reporting per Respondent: 46 hours.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,070 hours.
(3) Description of the need and use of the information: The statutorily required information is needed to compute payments due units of general local government under the PILT Act (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907). The Act requires the Governor of each State to furnish a statement as to amounts paid to units of general local government under 12 revenue-sharing statutes in the prior fiscal year. The FY 2016 budget proposes a one-year extension of the current PILT program, maintaining the existing formula for calculating payments to counties. That proposal is currently pending before Congress. This renewal authority is being done in anticipation of reauthorization by Congress.
(4) As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
The Department of the Interior invites comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
“Burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review. Before including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comment(s), you should be aware your entire comment (including PII) may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold PII from public view, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so.
If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment via the contact information provided in the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue the collection of information from applicants for land for recreation or public purposes. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved this information collection activity, and assigned it control number 1004-0012.
The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before January 14, 2016.
Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, OMB ID: 1004-0012, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at
Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240.
Fax: To Jean Sonneman at 202-245-0050.
Electronic mail:
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0012” regardless of the form of your comments.
Flora Bell, at 202-912-7347. Persons
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).
As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Please send comments as directed under
The following information pertains to this request:
National Park Service, Interior.
Public Notice.
The National Park Service hereby gives public notice that it proposes to extend the following expiring concession contracts for a period of up to one (1) year, or until the effective date of a new contract, whichever occurs sooner.
Effective January 1, 2016.
Brian Borda, Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone: 202-513-7156.
All of the listed concession authorizations will expire by their terms on or before December 31, 2015. The National Park Service has determined the proposed short-term extensions are necessary to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption. The publication of this notice merely reflects the intent of the National Park Service but does not bind the National Park Service to extend any of the contracts listed below.
Under the provisions of current concession contracts and pending the completion of the public solicitation of a prospectus for a new concession contract, the National Park Service authorizes the extension of visitor services for the contracts below until the dates shown under the terms and conditions of the current contract as amended. The extension of operations does not affect any rights with respect to selection for award of a new concession contract.
Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of public hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence has been canceled: Evidence Rules Hearing on January 6, 2016 in Phoenix, Arizona. Announcements for this meeting were previously published in 80 FR 48120, 80 FR 50324 and 80 FR 51604. The public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence scheduled for February 12, 2016, in Washington, DC, remains scheduled, subject to sufficient expressions of interest.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone:202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—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,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision to Currently Approved Collection
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-Annual Progress Report for Grantees from the Enhanced Training and Services to End Violence Against and Abuse of Women Later in Life Program (Training Program)
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0008. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 18 grantees of the Training Program. Training Program grants may be used for training programs to assist law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and relevant officers of Federal, State, tribal, and local courts in recognizing, addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and violence against individuals with disabilities, including domestic violence and sexual assault, against older or disabled individuals. Grantees fund projects that focus on providing training for criminal justice professionals to enhance their ability to address elder abuse, neglect and exploitation in their communities and enhanced services to address these crimes.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 18 respondents (Training Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. A Training Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 36 hours, that is 18 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour. If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 16, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 16, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—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)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ.
Notice of Charter Establishment of the Executive Advisory Board of the National Domestic Communications Assistance Center.
Pursuant to Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65, notice is hereby given that the Charter for the National Domestic Communications Assistance Center (NDCAC) Executive Advisory Board (EAB) was filed on August 1, 2014. The Charter is on file with the General Services Administration. However, the EAB has not met nor conducted any business since its establishment. The Attorney General determined that the NDCAC EAB is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties of the Department of Justice and these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group. This determination followed consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
The purpose of the EAB is to provide advice and recommendations to the Attorney General or designee, and to the Director of the NDCAC that promote public safety and national security by advancing the NDCAC's core functions: law enforcement coordination with respect to technical capabilities and solutions, technology sharing, industry relations, and implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
Alice Bardney-Boose, Designated Federal Officer, National Domestic Communications Assistance Center, Department of Justice, by email at
The EAB consists of 15 voting members composed of Representative members, Regular Government Employees and/or Special Government Employees. The membership includes representatives from Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. Additionally, there are two non-voting members as follows: a federally-employed attorney assigned full time to the NDCAC to serve as a legal advisor to the EAB, and the DOJ Chief Privacy Officer or designee to ensure that privacy and civil rights and civil liberties issues are fully considered in the EAB's recommendations. The Board is composed of eight State, local, and/or tribal representatives and seven federal representatives. Any future changes to the voting membership of the EAB will maintain the continued majority of State, local, and/or tribal representatives by one seat.
The membership of the entire EAB includes active executive level officials (
The EAB provides advice and recommendations to the Attorney General or designee on: (1) The selection and appointment of the Director and Deputy Director(s) of the NDCAC; (2) trends and developments with respect to existing and emerging communications services and technologies; (3) technical challenges faced by Federal, State, tribal and local law enforcement agencies with respect to lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance capabilities, evidence collection on communications devices, and technical location capabilities; (4) the effective leveraging and exchange of technical information and methods among Federal, State, tribal and local law enforcement agencies regarding lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance capabilities, evidence collection on communications devices, and technical location capabilities; (5) relations between law enforcement agencies and the communications industry to include leveraging existing and/or developing new private/public partnerships; (6) the development of standard practices within the law enforcement community; (7) implementation of CALEA; and (8) security and privacy policies, standards for participation by law enforcement agencies, and other issues relating to the functions, programs and operations of the NDCAC. The EAB further assists in shaping the goals and mission of the NDCAC by providing advice and guidance to the Director of the NDCAC on the establishment of policies and procedures designed to: ensure clarity in roles and responsibilities of the NDCAC; focus on established outcomes, intended results and accountability (by recommending specific courses of action); implement an effective infrastructure for the dissemination of technical information and methods; maintain an external focus to represent law enforcement stakeholders; pursue adequate resources necessary to accomplish the mission; and broker multi-agency participation and facilitate combined initiatives. The EAB provides insight into the diverse nature of jurisdiction-specific statutes and agency policies and procedures under which NDCAC participating law enforcement agencies operate. The EAB also receives information to review, monitor, and track training provided by or for NDCAC participating law enforcement agencies as well as recommend the development of standard practices for automated capabilities involving industry assistance.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision to Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-Annual Progress Report for Grantees from the Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Program.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 165 grantees of the Rural Program. The primary purpose of the Rural Program is to enhance the safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and child victimization by supporting projects uniquely designed to address and prevent these crimes in rural jurisdictions. Grantees include States, Indian tribes, local governments, and nonprofit, public or private entities, including tribal nonprofit organizations, to carry out programs serving rural areas or rural communities.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 165 respondents (Rural Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. A Rural Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 330 hours, that is 165 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 16, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of inquiry.
The U.S. Copyright Office is undertaking a study at the request of Congress to review the role of copyright law with respect to software-enabled consumer products. The topics of public inquiry include whether the application of copyright law to software in everyday products enables or frustrates innovation and creativity in the design, distribution and legitimate uses of new products and innovative services. The Office also is seeking information as to whether legitimate interests or business models for copyright owners and users could be improved or undermined by changes to the copyright law in this area. This is a highly specific study not intended to examine or address more general questions about software and copyright protection.
Written comments must be received no later than February 16, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written reply comments must be received no later than March 18, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The Office will be announcing one or more public meetings, to take place after written comments are received, by separate notice in the future.
All comments must be submitted electronically. Specific instructions for submitting comments will be posted on the Copyright Office Web site at
Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General Counsel,
Copyrighted software can be found in a wide range of everyday consumer products—from cars, to refrigerators, to cellphones, to thermostats, and more. Consumers have benefited greatly from this development: Software brings new
This study is not the proper forum for issues arising under section 1201 of the Copyright Act, which addresses the circumvention of technological protection measures on copyrighted works. Earlier this year, the Register of Copyrights testified that certain aspects of the section 1201 anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) were unanticipated when enacted almost twenty years ago, and would benefit from further review. These issues include, for example, the application of anticircumvention rules to everyday products, as well as their impact on encryption research and security testing. If you wish to submit comments about section 1201, please do so through the forthcoming section 1201 study, information on which will be available shortly at
Copyright law has expressly protected computer programs,
Since the 1976 Act's enactment, the scope of copyright protection for computer programs has continued to be refined by Congress through legislation and by the courts through litigation. At least some of that attention has focused on the precise problem presented here: The presence of software in everyday products.
In the mid-1970s, Congress created the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”) to study and report on the complex issues raised by extending copyright protection to computer programs.
While CONTU did not specifically anticipate that software would become embedded in everyday products, CONTU did recognize some general issues resulting from the fact that computer programs need a machine to operate. Specifically, CONTU recognized that the process by which a machine operates a computer program necessitates the making of a copy of the program and that adaptations are sometimes necessary to make a program interoperable with the machine.
At the same time, CONTU foresaw that the issues surrounding copyright protection for software would have to be examined again by Congress and the Copyright Office:
[T]he Commission recognizes that the dynamics of computer science promise changes in the creation and use of authors' writings that cannot be predicted with any certainty. The effects of these changes should have the attention of Congress and its appropriate agencies to ensure that those who are the responsible policy makers maintain an awareness of the changing impact of computer technology on both the needs of authors and the role of authors in the information age. To that end, the Commission recommends that Congress, through the appropriate committees, and the Copyright Office, in the course of its administration of copyright registrations and other activities, continuously monitor the impact of computer applications on the creation of works of authorship.
A decade later, in response to concerns that commercial rental of
Congress revisited the issues surrounding software and copyright law with the DMCA.
The Section 104 Report discussed a number of issues relevant to the discussion of software in everyday products. For instance, it addressed proposals to add a “digital first sale” right to section 109 of the Copyright Act to explicitly grant consumers the authority to resell works in digital format. Although the Office concluded that no legislative changes to section 109 were necessary at the time, it recognized that “[t]he time may come when Congress may wish to consider further how to address these concerns.”
In the meantime, courts, too, have weighed in on a number of issues concerning copyright protection of software, including copyrightability, the application of the fair use doctrine, and ownership of software by consumers. In analyzing these issues, however, courts have not generally distinguished between software installed on general purpose computers and that embedded in everyday products.
Courts have helped define the scope of copyright protection for software and address questions of infringement through application of doctrines such as the idea/expression dichotomy (codified in 17 U.S.C. 102(b)), merger, and
The fair use doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. 107, is also relevant here. Courts have applied the fair use doctrine to permit uses of software that ensure interoperability of software with new products and devices. For example, in
Another important issue courts have tackled involves the scope of section 117's limitations on exclusive rights in computer programs. Section 117(a) allows copies or adaptations of
Issues associated with the spread of copyrighted software in everyday products have prompted legislative action in an attempt to address some of the copyright issues created by the spread of such works.
The Unlocking Technology Act of 2015, as most pertinent to this study, would amend section 117 of the Copyright Act to permit the reproduction or adaptation of “the software or firmware of a user-purchased mobile communications device for the sole purpose of . . . connect[ing] to a wireless communications network” if the reproduction or adaptation is initiated by or with the consent of the owner of the device, the owner is in legal possession of the device, and the owner has the consent of the authorized operator of the wireless communications network to use the network.
In addition, the You Own Devices Act (“YODA”) would amend section 109 of the Copyright Act to allow the transfer of ownership of a copy of a computer program embedded on a machine or other product “if [the] computer program enables any part of [that] machine or other product to operate,” as well as any right to receive software updates or security patches from the manufacturer.
Some issues related to software embedded in everyday products have come to the forefront in recent years through the 1201 rulemaking process. As the Copyright Office has frequently noted, the 1201 rulemaking can serve as a barometer for larger public policy questions, including issues that may merit or would require legislative change. The public should not submit concerns about section 1201 through this software study, but rather through the Copyright Office's forthcoming study on section 1201, information about which will be available shortly at
In response to the letter from Senators Grassley and Leahy, the Office is seeking public comment on the following five topics. A party choosing to respond to this Notice of Inquiry need not address every subject, but the Office requests that responding parties clearly identify and separately address each subject for which a response is submitted.
1. The provisions of the copyright law that are implicated by the ubiquity of copyrighted software in everyday products;
2. Whether, and to what extent, the design, distribution, and legitimate uses of products are being enabled and/or frustrated by the application of existing copyright law to software in everyday products;
3. Whether, and to what extent, innovative services are being enabled and/or frustrated by the application of existing copyright law to software in everyday products;
4. Whether, and to what extent, legitimate interests or business models for copyright owners and users could be undermined or improved by changes to the copyright law in this area; and
5. Key issues in how the copyright law intersects with other areas of law in establishing how products that rely on software to function can be lawfully used.
When addressing these topics, respondents should consider the following specific issues:
1. Whether copyright law should distinguish between software embedded in “everyday products” and other types of software, and, if so, how such a distinction might be drawn in an administrable manner.
a. Whether “everyday products” can be distinguished from other products that contain software, such as general purpose computers—essentially how to define “everyday products.”
b. If distinguishing between software embedded in “everyday products” and other types of software is impracticable, whether there are alternative ways the Office can distinguish between categories of software.
2. The rationale and proper scope of copyright protection for software embedded in everyday products, including the extent to which copyright infringement is a concern with respect to such software.
3. The need to enable interoperability with software-embedded devices, including specific examples of ways in which the law frustrates or enables such interoperability.
4. Whether current limitations on and exceptions to copyright protection
a. The idea/expression dichotomy (codified in 17 U.S.C. 102(b))
b. The merger doctrine
c. The
d. Fair use (codified in 17 U.S.C. 107)
e. The first-sale doctrine (codified in 17 U.S.C. 109)
f. Statutory limitations on exclusive rights in computer programs (codified in 17 U.S.C. 117)
5. The state of contract law
6. Any additional relevant issues not raised above.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces the following committee meeting.
The meeting will be on January 27, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT.
National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Jefferson Room; Washington, DC 20408.
Robert J. Skwirot, Senior Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Washington, DC 20408, by telephone number at (202) 357-5398, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss matters relating to the Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, January 22, 2016. ISOO will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
National Labor Relations Board.
Notice; correction.
The National Labor Relations Board published a document in the
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
In the
By Direction of the Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Finding of no significant impact with associated environmental assessment; final issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) related to a request to amend the Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82, and SNM-2511 issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, including the specific-license Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (hereinafter DCPP or the facility), located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The requested amendments would permit licensee security personnel to use certain firearms and ammunition feeding devices not previously permitted, notwithstanding State, local, and certain Federal firearms laws or regulations that otherwise prohibit such actions.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0244 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Siva P. Lingam, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1564, email:
The NRC is considering a request to amend the Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82, and SNM-2511 issued to PG&E, for operation of DCPP, located in San Luis Obispo County, California in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 of title 10 of the
The proposed action would permit security personnel at DCPP in the performance of their official duties, to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use certain firearms, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices not previously permitted to be owned or possessed, notwithstanding State, local, and certain Federal firearms laws, or regulations, that otherwise prohibit such actions.
The proposed action is in accordance with the PG&E's application dated September 24, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13268A398), as supplemented by letters dated December 18, 2013, May 15, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14135A379), and March 26, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15085A572).
The proposed action would allow the transfer, receipt, possession, transportation, importation and use of those firearms and devices needed in the performance of official duties required for the protection of an NRC designated facility and associated special nuclear materials, consistent with the NRC approved security plan.
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action would only allow the use of those firearms and devices necessary to protect DCPP and associated special nuclear material, consistent with the DCPP NRC-approved security plan. Therefore, the proposed action would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. In addition, the proposed action would not change the types and the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would also be no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there would be no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The proposed action would not impact land, air, or water resources, including biota. In addition, the proposed action would not result in any socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts or impacts to historic and cultural resources. Therefore, there would also be no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the issuance of the requested amendment would not result in significant environmental impacts.
Details of the NRC's evaluation will be provided in a letter to the licensee.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denying the proposed action (
The proposed action would not involve the use of any resources.
The staff did not consult with any other Federal Agency or State of California agencies regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The licensee has requested license amendments to permit licensee security personnel in the performance of official duties, to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use certain firearms, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices not previously permitted to be owned or possessed notwithstanding State, local, and certain Federal firearms laws, including regulations that would otherwise prohibit such actions.
On the basis of the information presented in this environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action would not cause any significant environmental impact and would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. In addition, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for the evaluation of this proposed action.
Other than the licensee's application dated September 24, 2013, there are no other environmental documents associated with this review. These documents are available for public inspection as indicated above.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 24 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. MC2016-27 and CP2016-33 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 24 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 16, 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. MC2016-27 and CP2016-33 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 16, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 8, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 8, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 8, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code K, which routes to PSX using ROUC or ROUE routing strategy. In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a fee of $0.0028 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code K. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to $0.0029 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders to PSX when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to PSX's December 2015 fee change where PSX increased the fee to remove liquidity via routable order types it charges its customers, from a fee of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.0028 per share for Tapes A and B securities and from a fee of $0.0028 per share to $0.0029 per share for Tape C securities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of $0.0029 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code K would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to PSX. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Trades market data product offering. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Trades market data feed product offering.
NYSE Trades is an NYSE-only last-sale market data feed. NYSE Trades currently allows vendors, broker-dealers and others to make available on a real-time basis the same last sale information that the Exchange reports under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan for inclusion in the CTA Plan's consolidated data streams. Specifically, the NYSE Trades feed includes, for each security traded on the Exchange, the real-time last sale price, time and size information and bid/ask quotations at the time of each sale and a stock summary message. The stock summary message updates every minute and includes NYSE's opening price, high price, low price, closing price, and cumulative volume for the security.
The Exchange proposes to remove the bid/ask information from the NYSE Trades feed, thereby focusing the NYSE Trades feed on NYSE last sale information. This change would streamline the NYSE Trades content, as well as align NYSE Trades content with that of last sale data feeds offered by other exchanges.
The Exchange expects to offer both the current NYSE Trades data product and the proposed NYSE Trades data product for a limited transition period. After the transition period, the Exchange would stop offering the current NYSE Trades data product and offer only the NYSE Trades data product proposed in this filing. The Exchange would announce the transition dates in advance. There would be no change to the fees for NYSE Trades in connection with the proposed changes.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that modifying the NYSE Trades product to remove the bid/ask information it currently includes and to provide only NYSE last sale information would streamline the product and clarify the purpose and use for each of the NYSE proprietary market data products. NYSE Trades' content, as proposed, would be consistent with that of last sale data feeds offered by other exchanges, which similarly offer last sale market data products that do not include bid and offer information.
In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the product would be available to all of the Exchange's market data vendors and customers on an equivalent basis.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the data product modification proposed herein, focusing the NYSE Trades feed on last sale data by removing the bid/ask data, is precisely the sort of market data product enhancement that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by lessening regulation of the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history.
The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's products, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the modified product would be available to all of the Exchange's vendors and customers on an equivalent basis.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities (such as internalizing broker-dealers and various forms of alternative trading systems, including dark pools and electronic communication networks), in a vigorously competitive market. It is common for market participants to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal for the Exchange's equity options platform (“BZX Options”) to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 (Mini Options Contracts) to Rule 19.6 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6 regarding Mini Options Contracts traded on BZX Options, to replace the name “Google Inc.” with “Alphabet Inc.” Google Inc. (“Google”) recently reorganized to create a new public holding company called Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”). As a result of the holding company reorganization, each share of Class A Common Stock (“GOOG”), which the Exchange has listed as a Mini Options Contract, has automatically converted into an equivalent corresponding share of Alphabet Inc. stock. The Exchange also proposes to change symbol “GOOG” in Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6 to “GOOGL” to make the BZX Options Alphabet Class A Common Stock Mini Options Contract symbol consistent with the Alphabet symbols used across the national exchanges.
The Exchange proposes this change to Interpretation and Policy .07 to enable the Exchange to list and trade Mini Options Contract on Google, now Alphabet, Class A shares. The Exchange is proposing to make this change because, on October 5, 2015 Google reorganized and as a result underwent a name change.
The purpose of this change is to ensure that Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6 reflects the Exchange's intention to be able to list and trade Mini Options on an exhaustive list of underlying securities enumerated in Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6. This change is meant to continue the inclusion of Class A shares of Google (now Alphabet) in the current list of underlying securities that Mini Options Contracts can be traded on, while making clear that Class C Capital Stock shares of Google (now Alphabet) are not part of that list as that class of options has not been approved for Mini Options Contracts trading. As a result, the proposed change will help avoid confusion.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposal to change the name Google to Alphabet to reflect the new ownership structure is consistent with the Act because the proposed change merely updates the current name to allow for continued Mini Options Contracts trading on Google's (now Alphabet) Class A shares and changes the symbol “GOOG” to “GOOGL” to be consistent with other national exchanges. The proposed change will allow for continued benefit to investors by enabling the Exchange to provide them with additional investment alternatives.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intra-market competition because it applies to all members and member organizations uniformly. There is no burden on inter-market competition because the exchange [sic] is merely attempting to continue to have the ability to list and trade Class A shares of the company formerly known as Google, now Alphabet, as a Mini Option Contract. Additionally, the changing the “GOOG” symbol to “GOOGL” will be a change in name-only. The new symbol will continue to represent shares of Google's (now Alphabet's) Class A shares. As a result, there will be no substantive changes to the Exchange's operations or its rules.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the Exchange to accurately reflect the new ownership structure and ticker symbol for Alphabet Class A shares and to continue to list and trade mini options on Alphabet's Class A shares, formerly Google Class A shares. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C—Equities to define the term “Official Closing Price.” The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C—Equities (“Rule 123C”) to define the term “Official Closing Price” and specify how the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price for all securities listed on the Exchange.
Currently, if the Exchange does not conduct a closing transaction in a security, it does not specify any closing price information about that security.
As proposed, Rule 123C(1)(e) would provide that the Official Closing Price of a security listed on the Exchange would be determined as set forth in proposed Rules 123C(1)(e)(i) and (ii). Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(i) would provide that the Official Closing Price would be the price established in a closing transaction under paragraphs (7) and (8) of Rule 123C of one round lot or more. As further proposed, if there is no closing transaction in a security or if a closing transaction is less than one round lot, the Official Closing Price would be the most recent last-sale eligible trade in such security on the Exchange on that trading day. For example, there would not be a closing transaction in a security if there is insufficient trading interest for a closing transaction of a round lot or more or because the security has been halted as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. If there were no closing transaction and no last-sale eligible trades on the Exchange on that trading day, the Exchange proposes that the Official Closing Price would be the prior day's Official Closing Price. As such, the Exchange would carry over the prior day's Official Closing Price for a security until such time that there is either a closing transaction on the Exchange or a last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange in such security.
For example, if on Monday, a security trades on the NYSE at 3:00 p.m. for $10.00, but there is no closing transaction, the Official Closing Price for that security on Monday would be $10.00. If on Tuesday there are no trades in that security on the Exchange and no closing transaction, Tuesday's Official Closing Price would be the Official Closing Price for the prior day, which was $10.00. Similarly, if on Wednesday, there are still no trades on the Exchange in that security, Wednesday's Official Closing Price would be Tuesday's Official Closing Price, which was $10.00. The Official Closing Price for the security would continue to be $10.00 until there is either a closing transaction or a last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange on a trading day in the security.
As further proposed, Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would provide that if the Exchange were unable to conduct a closing transaction due to a systems or technical issue, the Official Closing Price would be the last consolidated last-sale eligible trade during regular trading hours on that trading day.
Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would further provide that if there were no consolidated last-sale eligible trades in a security on a trading day when the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing transaction in a security or securities due to a systems or technical issue, the Official Closing Price of such security would be the prior day's Official Closing Price. The Exchange notes that this proposal differs from NYSE Rule 440B(c)(3), which provides that if trading is interrupted on the Exchange because of a systems or technical issue and not restored on that trading day, the Exchange would use the most recent consolidated last sale price for that security on the most recent day on which the security traded for purposes of determining whether the short sale price test restrictions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO are triggered. The Exchange believes that using the last Official Closing Price from the prior trading day instead of the most recent consolidated last-sale price would incorporate the Exchange's proposed new methodology for determining the Official Closing Price, as described above.
For example, assuming the same facts as the scenario described above, when $10.00 is the Official Closing Price on Tuesday and Wednesday, if on Thursday, the Exchange experiences a systems issue and is not able to conduct a closing transaction in that security and there is no consolidated last sale for that trading day, the Official Closing Price would again be $10.00.
The Exchange also proposes to change Rule 123C(8) to use the term “closing transaction,” instead of “closing print.” This change would conform the terminology in Rule 123C(8) to Rule 123C(7) and proposed Rule 123C(1)(e).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming amendments to Rule 440B—Equities (“Rule 440B”), which governs Short Sales. Rule 440B(b) currently sets forth the procedures for a Short Sale Price Test and provides that Exchange systems will not execute or display a short sale order with respect to a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national best bid if the price of that security decreases by 10% of more, as determined by the listing market for the security, from the security's closing price on the listing market as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day (“Trigger Price”). If the Exchange does not have a closing transaction in a security, it currently uses the last sale price on the Exchange as the Trigger Price. Rule 440B(c)(2) further provides that if a covered security did not trade on the Exchange on the prior trading day (due to a trading halt, trading suspension, or otherwise) the Exchange's determination of the Trigger Price shall be based on the last sale price on the Exchange for that security on the most recent day on which the security traded.
The Exchange proposes to use the new definition of “Official Closing Price” in Rule 440B. As proposed, Rule 440B(b) would provide that Exchange systems would not execute or display a short sale order with respect to a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national best bid if the price of that security decreases by 10% or more, as determined by the listing market for that security, from the security's
As discussed above, the proposed new definition of Official Closing Price would incorporate what price the Exchange would use in circumstances when there is no closing auction. Consistent with current Rule 440B(c)(2), proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(i) would provide that if there is no auction in a security, the last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange would be the Official Closing Price. In addition, similar to NYSE Rule 440B(c)(3), proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would provide that if the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing auction because of a systems or
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide transparency in how the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price in all Exchange-listed securities, regardless of whether there was a closing transaction. The Exchange believes that using the Exchange's last sale price as the Official Closing Price if there is no closing transaction would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because if there is insufficient trading interest for an auction, the last sale price on the Exchange in such security would likely reflect the most recent price for that security. The Exchange further believes that using the consolidated last sale price as the Official Closing Price if the Exchange is experiencing a system or technical issue that impairs the ability to conduct a closing transaction would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because if the Exchange's systems are not functioning, but other markets are trading, the consolidated last sale price on a trading day would likely reflect the most recent price for that security.
The Exchange believes that amending Rule 440B to similarly use the term Official Closing Price would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote transparency and consistency across Exchange rules. In particular, Rule 440B references the closing price on the listing market at the end of the regular trading hours for purposes of determining the Trigger Price under that rule. By using the term “Official Closing Price” in Rule 440B(b), the Exchange would be using a defined term and would obviate the need to separately describe the events currently set forth in Rule 440B(c)(2).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to provide greater transparency in Exchange rules regarding how the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price for all securities listed on the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code K, which routes to PSX using ROUC or ROUE routing strategy. In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a fee of $0.0028 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code K. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to $0.0029 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders to PSX when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to PSX's December 2015 fee change where PSX increased the fee to remove liquidity via routable order types it charges its customers, from a fee of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.0028 per share for Tapes A and B securities and from a fee of $0.0028 per share to $0.0029 per share for Tape C securities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of $0.0029 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code K would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to PSX. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE MKT Trades market data product offering. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE MKT Trades market data feed product offering.
NYSE MKT Trades is an NYSE MKT-only last-sale market data feed. NYSE MKT Trades currently allows vendors, broker-dealers and others to make available on a real-time basis the same last sale information that the Exchange reports under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan for inclusion in the CTA Plan's consolidated data streams. Specifically, the NYSE MKT Trades feed includes, for each security traded on the Exchange, the real-time last sale price, time and size information and bid/ask quotations at the time of each sale and a stock summary message. The stock summary message updates every minute and includes NYSE MKT's opening price, high price, low price, closing price, and cumulative volume for the security.
The Exchange proposes to remove the bid/ask information from the NYSE MKT Trades feed, thereby focusing the NYSE MKT Trades feed on NYSE MKT last sale information. This change would streamline the NYSE MKT Trades content, as well as align NYSE MKT Trades content with that of last sale data feeds offered by other exchanges.
The Exchange expects to offer both the current NYSE MKT Trades data product and the proposed NYSE MKT Trades data product for a limited transition period. After the transition period, the Exchange would stop offering the current NYSE MKT Trades data product and offer only the NYSE MKT Trades data product proposed in this filing. The Exchange would announce the transition dates in advance. There would be no change to the fees for NYSE MKT Trades in connection with the proposed changes.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that modifying the NYSE MKT Trades product to remove the bid/ask information it currently includes and to provide only NYSE MKT last sale information would streamline the product and clarify the purpose and use for each of the NYSE MKT proprietary market data products. NYSE MKT Trades' content, as proposed, would be consistent with that of last sale data feeds offered by other exchanges, which similarly offer last sale market data products that do not include bid and offer information.
In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the product would be available to all of the Exchange's market data vendors and customers on an equivalent basis.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the data product modification proposed herein, focusing the NYSE MKT Trades feed on last sale data by removing the bid/ask data, is precisely the sort of market data product enhancement that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by lessening regulation of the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history.
The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's products, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the modified product would be available to all of the Exchange's vendors and customers on an equivalent basis.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities (such as internalizing broker-dealers and various forms of alternative trading systems, including dark pools and electronic communication networks), in a vigorously competitive market. It is common for market participants to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal for the Exchange's equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 (Mini Options Contracts) to Rule 19.6 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6 regarding Mini Options Contracts traded on EDGX Options, to replace the name “Google Inc.” with “Alphabet Inc.” Google Inc. (“Google”) recently reorganized to create a new public holding company called Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”). As a result of the holding company reorganization, each share of Class A Common Stock (“GOOG”), which the Exchange has listed as a Mini Options Contract, has automatically converted into an equivalent corresponding share of Alphabet Inc. stock. The Exchange also proposes to change symbol “GOOG” in Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6 to “GOOGL” to make the EDGX Options Alphabet Class A Common Stock Mini Options Contract symbol consistent with the Alphabet symbols used across the national exchanges.
The Exchange proposes this change to Interpretation and Policy .07 to enable the Exchange to list and trade Mini Options Contract on Google, now Alphabet, Class A shares. The Exchange is proposing to make this change because, on October 5, 2015 Google reorganized and as a result underwent a name change.
The purpose of this change is to ensure that Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6 reflects the Exchange's intention to be able to list and trade Mini Options on an exhaustive list of underlying securities enumerated in Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 19.6. This change is meant to continue the inclusion of Class A shares of Google (now Alphabet) in the current list of underlying securities that Mini Options Contracts can be traded on, while making clear that Class C Capital Stock shares of Google (now Alphabet) are not part of that list as that class of options has not been approved for Mini Options Contracts trading. As a result, the proposed change will help avoid confusion.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposal to change the name Google to Alphabet to reflect the new ownership structure is consistent with the Act because the proposed change merely updates the current name to allow for continued Mini Options Contracts trading on Google's (now Alphabet) Class A shares and changes the symbol “GOOG” to “GOOGL” to be consistent with other national exchanges. The proposed change will allow for continued benefit to investors by enabling the Exchange to provide them with additional investment alternatives.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intra-market competition because it applies to all members and member organizations uniformly. There is no burden on inter-market competition because the exchange [sic] is merely attempting to continue to have the ability to list and trade Class A shares of the company formerly known as Google, now Alphabet, as a Mini Option Contract. Additionally, the changing the “GOOG” symbol to “GOOGL” will be a change in name-only. The new symbol will continue to represent shares of Google's (now Alphabet's) Class A shares. As a result, there will be no substantive changes to the Exchange's operations or its rules.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the Exchange to accurately reflect the new ownership structure and ticker symbol for Alphabet Class A shares and to continue to list and trade mini options on Alphabet's Class A shares, formerly Google Class A shares. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Oxford City Football Club, Inc., (“Oxford City”) is a Florida corporation with principal place of business listed as Deerfield Beach, Florida. Its stock is quoted on the OTCBB and OTC Link using the ticker symbol “OXFC.” It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Oxford City because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by Oxford City and its CEO Thomas A. Guerriero, and by others, in press releases and other statements to investors concerning, among other things: (1) The company's assets; (2) projections for the company's income; (3) the nature of the company's management; and (4) other general corporate plans and information.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to define the term “Official Closing Price.” The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to define the term “Official
Currently, if the Exchange does not conduct a closing transaction in a security, it does not specify any closing price information about that security.
As proposed, Rule 123C(1)(e) would provide that the Official Closing Price of a security listed on the Exchange would be determined as set forth in proposed Rules 123C(1)(e)(i) and (ii). Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(i) would provide that the Official Closing Price would be the price established in a closing transaction under paragraphs (7) and (8) of Rule 123C of one round lot or more. As further proposed, if there is no closing transaction in a security or if a closing transaction is less than one round lot, the Official Closing Price would be the most recent last-sale eligible trade in such security on the Exchange on that trading day. For example, there would not be a closing transaction in a security if there is insufficient trading interest for a closing transaction of a round lot or more or because the security has been halted as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. If there were no closing transaction and no last-sale eligible trades on the Exchange on that trading day, the Exchange proposes that the Official Closing Price would be the prior day's Official Closing Price. As such, the Exchange would carry over the prior day's Official Closing Price for a security until such time that there is either a closing transaction on the Exchange or a last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange in such security.
For example, if on Monday, a security trades on the NYSE at 3:00 p.m. for $10.00, but there is no closing transaction, the Official Closing Price for that security on Monday would be $10.00. If on Tuesday there are no trades in that security on the Exchange and no closing transaction, Tuesday's Official Closing Price would be the Official Closing Price for the prior day, which was $10.00. Similarly, if on Wednesday, there are still no trades on the Exchange in that security, Wednesday's Official Closing Price would be Tuesday's Official Closing Price, which was $10.00. The Official Closing Price for the security would continue to be $10.00 until there is either a closing transaction or a last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange on a trading day in the security.
As further proposed, Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would provide that if the Exchange were unable to conduct a closing transaction due to a systems or technical issue, the Official Closing Price would be the last consolidated last-sale eligible trade during regular trading hours on that trading day.
Proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would further provide that if there were no consolidated last-sale eligible trades in a security on a trading day when the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing transaction in a security or securities due to a systems or technical issue, the Official Closing Price of such security would be the prior day's Official Closing Price. The Exchange notes that this proposal differs from current Rule 440B(c)(3), which provides that if trading is interrupted on the Exchange because of a systems or technical issue and not restored on that trading day, the Exchange would use the most recent consolidated last sale price for that security on the most recent day on which the security traded for purposes of determining whether the short sale price test restrictions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO are triggered. The Exchange believes that using the last Official Closing Price from the prior trading day instead of the most recent consolidated last-sale price would incorporate the Exchange's proposed new methodology for determining the Official Closing Price, as described above.
For example, assuming the same facts as the scenario described above, when $10.00 is the Official Closing Price on Tuesday and Wednesday, if on Thursday, the Exchange experiences a systems issue and is not able to conduct a closing transaction in that security and there is no consolidated last sale for that trading day, the Official Closing Price would again be $10.00.
The Exchange also proposes to change Rule 123C(8) to use the term “closing transaction,” instead of “closing print.” This change would conform the terminology in Rule 123C(8) to Rule 123C(7) and proposed Rule 123C(1)(e).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming amendments to Rule 440B, which governs Short Sales. Rule 440B(b) currently sets forth the procedures for a Short Sale Price Test and provides that Exchange systems will not execute or display a short sale order with respect to a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national best bid if the price of that security decreases by 10% or more, as determined by the listing market for the security, from the security's closing price on the listing market as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day (“Trigger Price”). If the Exchange does not have a closing transaction in a security, it currently uses the last sale price on the Exchange as the Trigger Price.
Rule 440B(c)(2) further provides that if a covered security did not trade on the Exchange on the prior trading day (due to a trading halt, trading suspension, or otherwise) the Exchange's determination of the Trigger Price shall be based on the last sale price on the Exchange for that security on the most recent day on which the security traded. Rule 440B(c)(3) provides that if trading on the Exchange in a covered security is interrupted because of a systems or technical issue and is not restored during that trading day, the Exchange's determination of the Trigger Price shall be based on the consolidated last sale
The Exchange proposes to use the new definition of “Official Closing Price” in Rule 440B. As proposed, Rule 440B(b) would provide that Exchange systems would not execute or display a short sale order with respect to a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national best bid if the price of that security decreases by 10% or more, as determined by the listing market for that security, from the security's
As discussed above, the proposed new definition of Official Closing Price would incorporate what price the Exchange would use in circumstances when there is no closing auction. Consistent with current Rule 440B(c)(2), proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(i) would provide that if there is no auction in a security, the last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange would be the Official Closing Price. In addition, similar to Rule 440B(c)(3), proposed Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) would provide that if the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing auction because of a systems or technical issue, the last consolidated last-sale eligible trade on that trading day would be the Official Closing Price. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes a substantive difference to provide that if there is no consolidated last-sale price, the Exchange would use the prior day's Official Closing Price. Because the proposed definition of Official Closing Price would address the circumstances specified in Rules 440B(c)(2) and (3), the Exchange proposes to delete Rules 440B(c)(2) and (c)(3) as redundant of the proposed use of “Official Closing Price” in Rule 440B(b).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide transparency in how the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price in all Exchange-listed securities, regardless of whether there was a closing transaction. The Exchange believes that using the Exchange's last sale price as the Official Closing Price if there is no closing transaction would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because if there is insufficient trading interest for an auction, the last sale price on the Exchange in such security would likely reflect the most recent price for that security. The Exchange further believes that using the consolidated last sale price as the Official Closing Price if the Exchange is experiencing a system or technical issue that impairs the ability to conduct a closing transaction would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because if the Exchange's systems are not functioning, but other markets are trading, the consolidated last sale price on a trading day would likely reflect the most recent price for that security.
The Exchange believes that amending Rule 440B to similarly use the term Official Closing Price would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote transparency and consistency across Exchange rules. In particular, Rule 440B references the closing price on the listing market at the end of the regular trading hours for purposes of determining the Trigger Price under that rule. By using the term “Official Closing Price” in Rule 440B(b) the Exchange would be using a defined term and would obviate the need to separately describe the events currently set forth in Rules 440B(c)(2) and (3).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to provide greater transparency in Exchange rules regarding how the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price for all securities listed on the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of E.O. 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by E.O. 13268 of July 2, 2002, and E.O. 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Emrah Erdogan, also known as Salahuddin al-Kurdi committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State proposes to amend an existing system of records, Security Records, State-36, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, Appendix I.
This system of records will be effective on January 25, 2016, unless we receive comments that will result in a contrary determination.
Any persons interested in commenting on the amended system of records may do so by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
John Hackett, Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at
The Department of State proposes that the current system will retain the name “Security Records” (previously published at 78 FR 27276, May 9, 2013). The records maintained in State-36, Security Records, capture data related to incidents and threats affecting U.S. Government personnel, U.S. Government information, or U.S. Government facilities world-wide, for a variety of legal purposes including federal and state law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes. The information maintained in Security Records may be used to determine general suitability for employment or retention in employment, to grant a contract or issue a license, grant, or security clearance. The proposed system will include modifications and administrative updates to the following sections: Categories of individuals and Categories of records. Additionally, records regarding the Office of Foreign Missions were removed and included in a new SORN to provide greater transparency of their records.
The Department's report was filed with the Office of Management and Budget. The amended system description, “Security Records, State-36,” will read as set forth below.
Security Records.
Unclassified and Classified.
Department of State and its annexes, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and various field and regional offices throughout the United States, and abroad at some U.S. Embassies, U.S. Consulates General, and U.S. Consulates.
Present and former employees of the Department of State; applicants for Department employment who are presently being investigated for security clearance; contractors working for the Department; interns and detailees to the Department; employees of other federal agencies who have accounts on our Department networks; individuals requiring access to the official Department of State premises who have undergone or are undergoing security clearance; some passport and visa applicants concerning matters of adjudication; individuals and
Incident and investigative material relating to any category of individual described above, including case files containing items such as name, date and place of birth, citizenship, telephone numbers, addresses, physical description (including height, weight, body type, hair, clothing, gender, ethnicity, race, and other general and distinguishing physical features), accent description, identification media (such as passport, residency, or driver's license numbers), vehicle registration and vehicle information; email address, family identifiers (such as names of relatives and biographic information), employer identifiers, applications for passports and employment, photographs, biometric data (to include fingerprints, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) information), birth certificates, credit checks, security evaluations and clearances, other agency reports and informant reports; legal case pleadings and files; evidence collected during investigations; polygraphs; network audit records, network use records, email, chat conversations, and text messages sent using Department devices or networks; social media account findings for individuals undergoing security investigations; security violation files; training reports; weapons assignment database; firing proficiency and other security-related testing scores; availability for special protective assignments; language proficiency scores; intelligence reports; counterintelligence material; counterterrorism material; internal Departmental memoranda; internal personnel, fiscal, and other administrative documents; emergency contact information for Department employees and contractors; Social Security number; specific areas and times of authorized accessibility; escort authority; status and level of security clearance; issuing agency and issue date; and for all individuals: Date and times of building entrance and exit.
For visitors, information collected can include name, date of birth, citizenship, identification type, identification number, temporary badge number, host's name, office symbol, room number, and telephone number. For public-private partnerships to exchange security information, information collected can include name, address, telephone number and email address.
Security files contain information needed to provide protective services for the Secretary of State and visiting and resident foreign officials and associated foreign official facilities, and to protect the Department's official facilities and information assets. Security files contain documents and reports furnished to the Department by other agencies concerning individuals whose activities the other agencies believe may have a bearing on U.S. foreign policy interests.
(a) 5 U.S.C. 301 (Government Organization and Employees) (Departmental regulations); (b) 5 U.S.C. Chapter 73 (Suitability, Security, and Conduct); (c) 5 U.S.C. 7531-33 (National Security); (d) 8 U.S.C. 1104 (Enforcement of immigration and nationality laws); (e) 18 U.S.C. 111 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) (Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees); (f) 18 U.S.C. 112 (Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons); (g) 18 U.S.C. 201 (Bribery of public officials and witnesses); (h) 18 U.S.C.1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers); (i) 18 U.S.C. 1114 (Protection of officers and employees of the U.S.); (j) 18 U.S.C. 1116 (Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons); (k) 18 U.S.C. 1117 (Conspiracy to murder); (l) 18 U.S.C. 1541-1546 (Issuance without authority, false statement in application and use of passport, forgery or false use of passport, misuse of passport, safe conduct violation, fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents); (m) 22 U.S.C. 211a (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) (Authority to grant, issue, and verify passports); (n) 22 U.S.C. 842, 846, 911 (Duties of Officers and Employees and Foreign Service Officers) (Repealed, but applicable to past records); (o) 22 U.S.C. 2454 (Administration); (p) 22 U.S.C. 2651a (Organization of the Department of State); (q) 22 U.S.C. 2658 (Rules and regulations; promulgation by Secretary; delegation of authority) (Repealed, but applicable to past records); (r) 22 U.S.C. 2709 (Special Agents); (s) 22 U.S.C. 2712 (Authority to control certain terrorism-related services); (t) 22 U.S.C. 3921 (Management of the Foreign Service); (u) 22 U.S.C. 4802 (Diplomatic Security) (Responsibility of Secretary of State), (v) 22 U.S.C. 4804(3)(D) (Responsibilities of Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security) (Repealed, but applicable to past records); (w) 22 U.S.C. 4831-4835 (Accountability review, accountability review board, procedures, findings and recommendations by a board, relation to other proceedings); (x) 44 U.S.C. 31 (Federal Records Act of 1950, Sec. 506(a), as amended) (applicable to past records); (y) 44 U.S.C. 3541 (Federal Information Security Management); (z) Executive Order 10450 (Security requirements for government employment); (aa) Executive Order 12107 (Relating to the Civil Service Commission and Labor-Management in the Federal Service); (bb) Executive Order 13526 and its predecessor orders (National Security Information); (cc) Executive Order 12968 (Access to Classified Information); (dd) Executive Order 13587 (Security of Classified Networks and Information); (ee) Executive Order 13470 and its predecessor orders (United States Intelligence Activities); (ff) 22 CFR Subchapter M (International Traffic in Arms) (applicable to past records); (gg) 40 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (1949)); (hh) 31 U.S.C. (Internal Revenue Code); (ii) Pub. L. 99-399, 8/27/1986 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended); (jj) Pub. L. 100-202, 12/22/1987 (Appropriations for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State) (applicable to past records); (kk) Pub. L. 100-461, 10/1/1988 (Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
The records maintained in State-36, Security Records, capture data related to incidents and threats affecting U.S. Government personnel, U.S. Government information, or U.S. Government facilities world-wide, for a variety of legal purposes including federal and state law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes. The information maintained in Security Records may be used to determine general suitability for employment or retention in employment, to grant a contract or issue a license, grant, or security clearance.
The information in Security Records is used by:
(a) Department of State officials in the administration of their responsibilities;
(b) Appropriate committees of Congress in furtherance of their respective oversight functions;
(c) Department of Treasury; U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Agency for International Development; Department of Commerce; Peace Corps; Department of Defense; Central Intelligence Agency; Department of Justice; Department of Homeland Security; National Counter Terrorism Center; and other federal agencies inquiring pursuant to law or Executive Order, in order to make a determination of general suitability for employment or retention in employment, to grant a contract or issue a license, grant, or security clearance;
(d) Any federal, state, municipal, foreign or international law enforcement or other relevant agency or organization as needed for security, law enforcement or counterterrorism purposes, such as: Threat alerts and analyses, protective intelligence and counterintelligence information, information relevant for screening purposes;
(e) Any other agency or department of the federal government pursuant to statutory intelligence responsibilities or other lawful purposes;
(f) Any other agency or department of the Executive Branch having oversight or review authority with regard to its investigative responsibilities;
(g) A federal, state, local, foreign, or international agency or other public authority that investigates, prosecutes, or assists in investigation or prosecution of violation of criminal law or enforces, implements, or assists in enforcement or implementation of statute, rule, regulation, or order;
(h) A federal, state, local or foreign agency or other public authority or professional organization maintaining civil, criminal, and other relevant enforcement or pertinent records such as current licenses; information may be given to a consumer reporting agency:
(1) To obtain information, relevant enforcement records or other pertinent records such as current licenses, or
(2) to obtain information relevant to an agency investigation, a decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee or other personnel action, the issuance of a security clearance or the initiation of administrative, civil, or criminal action;
(i) Officials of government agencies in the letting of a contract, issuance of a license, grant or other benefit, and the establishment of a claim;
(j) Any private or public source, witness, or subject from which information is requested in the course of a legitimate agency investigation or other inquiry, to the extent necessary to identify an individual; to inform a source, witness or subject of the nature and purpose of the investigation or other inquiry; and to identify the information requested;
(k) An attorney or other designated representative of any source, witness or subject described in paragraph (j) of the Privacy Act only to the extent that the information would be provided to that category of individual itself in the course of an investigation or other inquiry;
(l) A federal agency following a response to its subpoena or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury or other criminal proceeding;
(m) Relevant information may be disclosed from this system to the news media and general public in furtherance of a legitimate law enforcement or public safety function as determined by the Department,
(n) State, local, federal or non-governmental agencies and entities as needed for purposes of emergency or disaster response; and
(o) U.S. government agencies within the framework of the National Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Initiative (NSI) regarding foreign intelligence and terrorist threats, managed by the Department of Justice.
The Department of State periodically publishes in the
Physical and electronic media.
By individual name, personal or biometric identifier, case number, badge number, and Social Security number (for other than visitors), as well as by each category of records in the system.
All users are given cybersecurity awareness training which covers the procedures for handling Sensitive But Unclassified information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Engaged Staff who handle PII are required to take the FSI distance learning course instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly. Before being granted access
Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only through a Department-approved access program. Remote access to the network is configured with the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-07-16 security requirements, which include but are not limited to two-factor authentication and time out function.
All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation. Access to the Department of State, its annexes, and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Retention of these records varies depending upon the specific kind of record involved. The records are retired or destroyed in accordance with published schedules of the Department of State and as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration. More specific information may be obtained by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2; Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and Director for the Diplomatic Security Service; Department of State; SA-20; 23rd Floor; 1801 North Lynn Street, Washington, DC 20522-2008 for the Harry S. Truman Building, domestic annexes, field offices and missions; Security Officers at respective U.S. Embassies, Consulates, and missions overseas.
Individuals who have reason to believe that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security may have security/investigative records pertaining to themselves should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2; Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100. The individual must specify that he/she wishes Security Records to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Name; date and place of birth; current mailing address and zip code; signature; and a brief description of the circumstances which may have caused the creation of the record.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or amend records pertaining to themselves should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services (address above).
See above.
These records contain information obtained from the individual; persons having knowledge of the individual; persons having knowledge of incidents or other matters of investigative interest to the Department; other U.S. law enforcement agencies and court systems; pertinent records of other federal, state, or local agencies or foreign governments; pertinent records of private firms or organizations; the intelligence community; and other public sources. The records also contain information obtained from interviews, review of records, and other authorized investigative techniques.
Any other exempt records from other agencies' systems of records that are recompiled into this system are also considered exempt to the extent they are claimed as such in the original systems.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), records in this system may be exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (2), (3), and (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), records in this system may be exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(5), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5).
See 22 CFR 171.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of Determination of Procurement Thresholds.
Scott Pietan, Director of International Procurement Policy, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-9646 or
Executive Order 12260 requires the United States Trade Representative to set the U.S. dollar thresholds for application of Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511
Now, therefore, I, Michael B.G. Froman, United States Trade Representative, in conformity with the provisions of Executive Order 12260, and in order to carry out U.S. trade agreement obligations under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, Chapter 15 of the United States-Australia FTA, Chapter 9 of the United States-Bahrain FTA, Chapter 9 of
For the calendar years 2016 and 2017, the thresholds are as follows:
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$191,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$589,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$77,533; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List A Entities— $387,667;
(2) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(3) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$191,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$10,079,365.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B entities—$589,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$12,405,952.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$77,533; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List A Entities— $487,667;
(2) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(3) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$77,533; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$77,533; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$191,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$77,533; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$10,079,365.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$387,667; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$12,405,952.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$191,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$10,079,365.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$12,405,952.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$191,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
D.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$589,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$191,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities— $589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$77,533; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$522,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$589,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$7,358,000.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Second RTCA Special Committee 235 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Second RTCA Special Committee 235 meeting.
The meeting will be held January 13-14, 2016 from 09:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 235. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Sixth RTCA Special Committee 230 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Sixth RTCA Special Committee 230 meeting.
The meeting will be held January 12-14, 2016 from 09:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0654.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 230. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Michael Williams (Williams), a noncarrier individual, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2), to continue in control of SDR Holding Company (SDR), upon its acquisition of control of Dakota Southern Railway Company (Dakota Southern), a Class III rail carrier.
According to Williams, SDR and Dakota Southern entered into a stock purchase agreement dated September 30, 2009, by which SDR acquired all of Dakota Southern's stock.
The exemption will become effective on December 29, 2015.
According to Williams, he currently owns and controls the following Class III rail carriers: (1) BG & CM Railroad (76.2 miles of rail line in Idaho); (2) Ozark Valley Railroad (24.99 miles of purchased and leased rail line in Missouri); (3) St. Maries River Railroad (71 miles of rail line in Idaho); (4) McCloud Railway (19.6 miles of rail line in California); and (5) Boot Hill & Western Railway Holding Co., Inc. (10.2 miles of rail line and the right to reactivate service on 15.8 miles of rail-banked rail line in Kansas).
Williams certifies that: (1) Dakota Southern does not connect with any other railroads owned and controlled by Williams; (2) the proposed transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would result in such a connection; and (3) the proposed transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed by December 22, 2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and ten copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35957, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on: Charles H. Montange, Law Offices of Charles H. Montange, 426 NW. 162d St., Seattle, WA 98177.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the Departmental Chief Information Officer, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the United States Department of Transportation proposes to rename, update and reissue a current Department of Transportation system of records titled, “Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration; DOT/FAA-801, Aviation Registration System.” Given that this system of records is comprised of multiple electronic databases, we are changing the name from “Aviation Registration System” to “Aviation Registration Records” to reflect that the system of records includes all Privacy Act records related to aircraft registration that are maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Registration Branch. In addition, this system is being updated to clarify the purpose of the Aircraft Registration Records system of records, which maintains electronic records of aircraft registration, including registration forms and supporting documents, instruments affecting ownership, aircraft financing, leases, and lien interests, as well as airworthiness applications and major repair and alteration reports. This system also includes registration records for small unmanned aircraft used for hobby and recreational purpose (
Written comments should be submitted on or before
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DOT-OST-2015-0235 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions, please contact: Claire W. Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Transportation (DOT)/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rename, update and reissue a DOT system of records titled, “DOT/FAA-801 Aviation Registration System.” The Department is establishing a streamlined, Web-based aircraft registration process for small unmanned aircraft systems. Owners of sUAS, however, may opt to register their sUAS through the existing paper-based process used to register manned aircraft in accordance with the procedures and requirements described in 14 CFR part 47 (the “part 47”). Also, owners of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) that do not qualify as sUAS must continue to comply with part 47 and register their aircraft through the paper-based process.
All sUAS owners who register their aircraft under part 48 must first create an account to access the Web-based application using their email address and a password. Once an account is created, sUAS owners register their aircraft by providing their name, mailing address, and physical address, if different from their mailing address. These applicants also may provide their telephone number. Those who register their sUAS under part 48 may have to submit additional information, depending on the intended use for the sUAS. Individuals intending to fly sUAS for commercial purposes (as well as Federal, State, and local governments and corporations) are required to include their telephone number, and sUAS make, model, and serial number with their application.
Under part 48, each sUAS (hereinafter “model aircraft”) owner registering for hobby and recreational purposes will receive a unique identifier for use on all model aircraft registered by that owner. Each sUAS used for non-model aircraft operations (
For all other aircraft required to be registered with the FAA, the FAA will continue to use the existing paper-based registration process under part 47. Applicants for aircraft registration must provide the FAA with their aircraft's manufacturer name, model, and serial number, the registered owner's contact information (name and physical address). Applicants must also provide any documents affecting aircraft ownership, loan, lien, or lease interests.
All records maintained by the FAA in connection with aircraft registered are included in the Aircraft Registry and made available to the public, except email address and credit card information submitted under part 48.
In order to facilitate implementation of the streamlined alternative registration process for small unmanned aircraft, the system of records notice (SORN) for the Aviation Registration System is being updated. Additionally, the SORN is being renamed, and updated to more accurately reflect and provide greater transparency regarding the collection, use, sharing, and maintenance of Privacy Act records in the Aircraft Registration system as a whole.
Because sUAS registered under part 48 have different registration requirements than aircraft registered under part 47, the categories of records has been updated to reflect the addition of email address and credit card information for registrants who register under part 48. The collection of email addresses will enable the FAA to establish user accounts for the FAA UAS Registration Service to facilitate access, and to quickly disseminate safety and educational materials to these sUAS owners, in furtherance of the FAA's safety and education objectives for unmanned aircraft operations. In addition, registrants under part 48 must pay the Aircraft Registration Fee as part of the online application process, thus, the SORN is being updated to include credit card information in the categories of records.
Additionally, we are renaming the system to “Aviation Registration Records.” Aviation Registration Records are maintained in several electronic databases. We are changing the name to clarify that the system of records includes all Privacy Act records related to aircraft registration that are maintained by the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch. Further, in the authorities section, we removed the reference to 49 U.S.C. 40101, which states the policy objectives that underlie DOT and FAA administration of the aviation-related provisions in Title 49 of the United States Code, but do not specifically authorize this system.
We also consolidated the routine uses and revised the remainder for clarity. Under the Privacy Act, “routine use” refers to a disclosure of the information
Finally, we updated the sections on storage, record retention, and safeguarding procedures to reflect changes since the last publication of the SORN in 2000. Since 2000, the FAA began digitally imaging paper files for electronic storage and retrieval and the SORN section on storage was revised accordingly. The record retention provision was updated to make it consistent with the record retention section approved by the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) in 2005. This update was inadvertently omitted from the Department's 2010 update to this SORN. The current record retention schedule, as approved in 2005, declared all records in the Aircraft Registration System to be of permanent value. The Department is currently evaluating whether registration records received under part 48, in particular, or UAS registration records, more generally, should similarly be retained permanently, or if an alternate schedule is more appropriate. This is also reflected in this updated SORN. Lastly, the notification, records access, and contesting records procedures have been revised for additional clarity regarding FAA redress policies and procedures.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the Federal Government collects, maintains, and uses personally identifiable information (PII) in a System of Records. A “System of Records” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOT has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Transportation (DOT)/FAA—801
Department of Transportation (DOT)/ALL—801, Aircraft Registration Records
Unclassified, sensitive.
Aircraft Registration Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.
FAA UAS Registration Service is a contractor managed system and the records are located by the contract manager: Aircraft Registration Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.
Aircraft owners, lien holders, and lessees.
Aircraft Registration Numbers; Aircraft manufacturer name, model, serial numbers Registered owner name, address, email, telephone number; Registration Information: (status: pending, valid, expired, canceled; type of ownership: individual, partnership, corporate, government, co-owned; dates: registration and expiry; airworthiness: type, status, date); Aircraft registration documents; Instruments affecting aircraft ownership, loan, lien, or lease interests; Applications for airworthiness; Major repair and alteration reports; Register owner credit card information (FAA UAS Registration Service user only).
i. 49 U.S.C. 44102, Registration requirements
ii. 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of aircraft
iii. 49 U.S.C. 44104, Registration of aircraft components and dealer's certificates of registration
iv. 49 U.S.C. 44105, Suspension and revocation of aircraft certificates
v. 49 U.S.C. 44106, Revocation of aircraft certificates for controlled substance violations
Provide a register of United States civil aircraft to aid in the national defense and to support a safe and economically strong civil aviation system, and to meet treaty requirements under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Annex 7. To determine that aircraft are registered in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44103. To support FAA safety programs and agency management. To aid law enforcement and aircraft accident investigations. To serve as a repository of legal documents to determine legal ownership of aircraft. Provide aircraft owners and operators information about potential mechanical defects or unsafe conditions of their aircraft in the form of airworthiness directives. Educate owners regarding safety requirements for operation. Receive and record payment of aircraft registration fee.
In addition to other disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOT as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1. To the public (including government entities, title companies, financial institutions, international organizations, FAA designee airworthiness inspectors, and others) information through the Aircraft Registry, including aircraft owner's name, address, United States Registration Number, aircraft type, and legal documents related to title or financing. Email addresses, credit card information, and sUAS owners' telephone numbers will not be disclosed pursuant to this Routine Use. The public may only retrieve the name and address of owners of sUAS registered under 14 CFR part 48 by the unique identifier displayed on the aircraft.
2. To law enforcement, when necessary and relevant to a FAA enforcement activity.
3. The Department has also published 15 additional routine uses applicable to all DOT Privacy Act systems of records, including this system. These routine uses are published in the
None.
Individual records for registered and canceled aircraft are maintained in an electronic digital image system. Some canceled aircraft records are stored as paper file folders until their conversion to digital images is completed. Backup copies of imaged records are stored at remote locations
Records of registered and cancelled aircraft in the digital image system may be retrieved by registration number, the manufacturer's name, model, and serial-number, credit card transaction number, and by the name of the current registered owner. Records are retrieved by the aircraft description. Unconverted canceled records may be retrieved using a former registration number and the manufacturer's name, model and serial-number.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DOT automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Aircraft registration records submitted under 14 CFR part 47 have been deemed by the National Archives and Records Administration to be of permanent value (see NARA Schedule N1-237-04-3). Paper copies of registration submissions are destroyed once the original is scanned into the system and the digital image is determined to be an adequate substitute for paper records. Copies of the Aircraft Registration system are transferred to NARA on an annual basis.
The FAA is working with NARA to establish an appropriate retention period for aircraft registration records submitted under 14 CFR part 48. Consistent with the Federal Records Act, the FAA will manage these records as permanent records under NARA has determined their historical value and issued an approved records disposition schedule.
Manager, Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.
Same as “System manager.”
Same as “System manager.”
Same as “System manager.”
Individuals, manufacturers of aircraft, maintenance inspectors, mechanics, and FAA officials. All forms associated with this system and subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the referenced information collection request/OMB control number 2120-0042.
None.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning election of $10 million limitation on exempt small issues of industrial development
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8905, Certification of Intent To Adopt a Pre-approved Plan.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8038-CP, Return for Credit Payments to Issuers of Qualified Bonds.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
This form is being submitted for renewal purposes only.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2003-38, Commercial Revitalization Deduction.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Treasury Decision 9002, Treasury Decision 9715, Revenue Procedure 2002-43, and Revenue Procedure 2015-26.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of regulations should be directed to Elaine Christophe, at (202) 317-5745, or at Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4626, Asset Acquisition Statement.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2003-48, Update of Checklist Questionnaire Regarding Requests for Spin-Off Rulings.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Sara Covington at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning certain cash or deferred arrangements and employee and matching contributions under employee plans, and retirement plans; cash or deferred arrangements.
Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material
Comment Request
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 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 16, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from 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.
The Veterans Metrics Initiative: Linking Program Components to Post-Military Well-Being
The concept and design of The Veterans Metrics Initiative (TVMI) were developed by a multi-disciplinary team of scientists from Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, academia, and private enterprise, under the auspices of the Henry Jackson Foundation for the Improvement of Military Medicine, to address the question: What works to help newly separated Veterans in their transition and reintegration into civilian life?
To answer this question, The Veterans Metrics Initiative will use a longitudinal study design to assess the well-being of a large sample of transitioning Veterans over time, while simultaneously examining the extent and range of program use by these Veterans over the same period. Because individual programs are numerous, widespread and often alike in design and service delivery, TVMI focuses specific and unique attention on program “components” as drivers of change. “Components” are defined as design and delivery elements that may be shared across multiple distinct programs separated geographically, administratively, or by their funding sources, but which exhibit undeniable similarities in their manner of approach to providing help. Simply, put, common components are techniques, strategies, or features used as part of a program. Components within programs include: (a) Knowledge (
a. Baseline Survey, VA Form 10-1500194(WS)—5,625 hours.
b. 6 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500189(WS)—3,938 hours.
c. 12 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500190(WS)—3,544 hours.
d. 18 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500191(WS)—3,190 hours.
e. 24 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500192(WS)—2,871 hours.
f. 30 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500193(WS)—2,584 hours.
a. Baseline Survey, VA Form 10-1500194(WS)—45 minutes.
b. 6 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500189(WS)—35 minutes.
c. 12 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500190(WS)—35 minutes.
d. 18 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500191(WS)—35 minutes.
e. 24 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500192(WS)—35 minutes.
f. 30 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500193(WS)—35 minutes.
a. Baseline Survey, VA Form 10-1500194(WS)—7,500.
b. 6 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500189(WS)—6,750.
c. 12 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500190(WS)—6,075.
d. 18 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500191(WS)—5,468.
e. 24 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500192(WS)—4,921.
f. 30 mo. Survey, VA Form 10-1500193(WS)—4,429.
By direction of the Secretary:
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735) and incorporated in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821). The fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual “regulatory flexibility agendas” describing regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at
The fall 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The complete fall 2015 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 30 Federal agencies and 59 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry.
To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
I. What are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
II. Why are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda published?
III. How are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda organized?
IV. What information appears for each entry?
V. Abbreviations.
VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?
The fall 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will 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 governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
• A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking proceeding;
• A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and
• Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Executive Order 12866, issued in 1993, requires the production of a Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. Executive Order 13563, issued in 2011, reaffirms the requirements of Executive Order 12866. Consistent with these Executive Orders, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is providing the 2015 Unified Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) and the Regulatory Plan (Plan) for public review. The Agenda and Plan are preliminary statements of regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities under consideration. The Agenda and Plan include “active rulemakings” that agencies could possibly conclude over the next year.
The Plan provides a list of important regulatory actions that agencies are considering for issuance in proposed or final form during the 2016 fiscal year. In contrast, the Agenda is a more inclusive list, including numerous ministerial actions and routine rulemakings, as well as long-term initiatives that agencies do not plan to complete in the coming year but on which they are actively working.
A central purpose of the Agenda is to involve the public, including State, local, and tribal officials, in Federal regulatory planning. The public examination of the Agenda and Plan will facilitate public participation in a regulatory system that, in the words of Executive Order 13563, protects “public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” We emphasize that rules listed on the Agenda must still undergo significant development and review before they are issued. No regulatory action can become effective until it has gone through the legally required processes, which generally include public notice and comment. Any proposed or final action must also satisfy the requirements of relevant statutes, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda. Those requirements, public comments, and new information may or may not lead an agency to go forward with an action that is currently under contemplation. Among other information, the Agenda also provides an initial classification of whether a rulemaking is “significant” or “economically significant” under the terms of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Whether a regulation is listed on the Agenda as “economically significant” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (generally, having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) can depend on several factors: Regulations may count as economically significant because they impose costs, confer large benefits, or remove significant burdens.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirmed the principles, structures, and definitions in Executive Order 12866, which has long governed regulatory review. Executive Order 13563 explicitly points to the need for predictability and certainty in the regulatory system, as well as for use of the least burdensome means to achieving regulatory ends. These Executive Orders include the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies should not proceed with rulemaking in the absence of a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs. They also establish public participation, integration and innovation, flexible approaches, scientific integrity, and retrospective review as areas of emphasis in regulation. In particular, Executive Order 13563 explicitly draws attention to the need to measure and improve “the actual results of regulatory requirements”—a clear reference to the importance of the retrospective review of regulations.
Executive Order 13563 addresses new regulations that are under development, as well as retrospective review of existing regulations that are already in place. With respect to agencies' review of existing regulations, the Executive Order calls for careful reassessment based on empirical analysis. The prospective analysis required by Executive Order 13563 may depend on a degree of prediction and speculation about a rule's likely impacts, and the actual costs and benefits of a regulation may be lower or higher than what was anticipated when the rule was originally developed.
Executive Order 13610,
Executive Orders 13563 and 13610 recognize that circumstances may change in a way that requires reconsideration of regulatory requirements. Lookback analysis allows agencies to reevaluate existing rules and to streamline, modify, or eliminate those regulations that do not make sense in their current form. The agencies' lookback efforts so far during this Administration have yielded approximately $22 billion in savings for the American public over the next five years.
The Administration is continuing to work with agencies to institutionalize retrospective review so that agencies regularly review existing rules on the books to ensure they remain effective, cost-justified, and based on the best available science. The Administration will continue to examine what is working and what is not, and eliminate unjustified and outdated regulations.
Regulatory lookback is an ongoing exercise, and continues to be a high priority for the Administration. In accordance with Executive Orders 13610 and 13563, in July 2015, agencies submitted to OIRA the latest updates of their retrospective review plans, which are publicly available at:
Reflecting that focus, the current Agenda lists approximately seventy-five rules under active development that are characterized as retroactively reviewing existing programs. Below are some examples of agency plans to reevaluate current practices in accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13610:
In addition to using regulatory lookback as a tool to make the regulatory system more efficient, the Administration has focused on promoting international regulatory cooperation. International regulatory cooperation supports economic growth, job creation, innovation, trade and investment, while also protecting public health, safety, and welfare. In May 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13609,
Executive Order 13609 also directed each agency to submit a Regulatory Plan that includes “a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.” Further, Executive Order 13609 requires each agency to “ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such” in the Regulatory Agenda.
In furtherance of this focus on international regulatory cooperation, in the summer of 2014, the United States and Canada released the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Forward Plan.
The Administration continues to foster a regulatory system that emphasizes the careful consideration of costs and benefits, public participation, integration, regulatory innovation, flexible regulatory approaches, and science. These considerations are meant to produce a regulatory system that draws on recent learning, that is driven by evidence, and that is suited to the distinctive circumstances of the 21st Century.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management. The Department touches the lives of almost every American, every day. Our regulatory plan reflects that reality and reinforces our commitment to achieve results for everyone we serve.
The regulatory plan continues USDA efforts to implement several important pieces of legislation. The 2014 Farm Bill provides authorization for services and programs that impact every American and millions of people around the world. The new Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) allows USDA, for the first time in over 30 years, opportunity to make real reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs by improving the critical nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children.
To assist the country in addressing today's challenges, USDA has developed a regulatory plan consistent with five strategic goals that articulate the Department's priorities.
Rural America is home to a vibrant economy supported by nearly 50 million Americans. These Americans come from diverse backgrounds and work in a variety of industries, including manufacturing, agriculture, services, government, and trade. Today, the country looks to rural America not only to provide food and fiber, but for crucial emerging economic opportunities such as renewable energy, broadband, and recreation. Many of the Nation's small businesses are located in rural communities and are the engine of job growth and an important source of innovation for the country. The economic vitality and quality of life in rural America depends on a healthy agricultural production system. Farmers and ranchers face a challenging global, technologically advanced, and competitive business environment. USDA works to ensure that producers are prosperous and competitive, have access to new markets, can manage their risks, and receive support in times of economic distress or weather-related disasters. Prosperous rural communities are those with adequate assets to fully support the well-being of community members. USDA helps to strengthen rural assets by building physical, human and social, financial, and natural capital.
USDA is committed to providing broadband to rural areas. Since 2009, USDA investments have delivered broadband service to 1.5 million households, businesses, schools, libraries and community facilities. These investments support the USDA goal to create thriving communities where people want to live and raise families. Consistent with these efforts, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published an interim rule on July 30, 2015, implementing Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program provisions included in section 6104 of the 2014 Farm Bill. The rule established two funding cycles to review and prioritize applications for the program. It also set a minimum level of acceptable broadband service at 4 megabits downstream and 1 megabit upstream. RUS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the administration of the Broadband program based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0572-AC34.
USDA also works to increase the effectiveness of the Government's investment in rural America. To this end, Rural Development will issue a final rule to establish program metrics to measure the economic activities created through grants and loans, including any technical assistance provided as a component of the grant or loan program, and to measure the short and long-term viability of award recipients, and any entities to whom recipients provide assistance using the awarded funds. The action is required by section 6209 of the 2014 Farm Bill, and will not change the underlying provisions of the included programs, such as eligibility, applications, scoring, and servicing provisions. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0570-AA95.
In another step to increase the effectiveness of the Government's investment in rural America, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) published a proposed rule on March 26, 2015, on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to specify the requirements for a person to be considered actively engaged in farming for the purpose of payment eligibility for certain FSA and CCC programs. These changes will ensure that farm program payments are going to the farmers and farm families that they are intended to help. Specifically, FSA is revising and clarifying the requirements for a significant contribution of active personnel management to a farming operation. These changes are required by the 2014 Farm Bill, and will not apply to persons or entities comprised solely of family members. FSA is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the rule based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI31.
The Federal Crop Insurance Program mitigates production and revenue losses from yield or price fluctuations and
National forests and private working lands provide clean air, clean and abundant water, and wildlife habitat. These lands sustain jobs and produce food, fiber, timber, and bio-based energy. Many of our landscapes are scenic and culturally important and provide Americans a chance to enjoy the outdoors. The 2014 Farm Bill delivered a strong conservation title that made robust investments to conserve and support America's working lands, and consolidated, and streamlined programs to improve efficiency and encourage participation. Farm Bill conservation programs provide America's farmers, ranchers and others with technical and financial assistance to enable conservation of natural resources, while protecting and improving agricultural operations. Seventy percent of the American landscape is privately owned, making private lands conservation critical to the health of our nation's environment and ability to ensure our working lands are productive. To sustain these many benefits, USDA has implemented the authorities provided by the 2014 Farm Bill to protect and enhance 1.3 billion acres of working lands. USDA also manages 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. Our partners include Federal, Tribal, and State governments; industry; non-governmental organizations, community groups and producers. The Nation's lands face increasing threats that must be addressed. USDA's natural resource-focused regulatory strategies are designed to make substantial contributions in the areas of soil health, resiliency to climate change, and improved water quality.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and wetlands and their related benefits. The 2014 Farm Bill consolidated the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) into ACEP. In fiscal year 2014, an estimated 143,833 acres of farmland, grasslands, and wetlands were enrolled into ACEP. Through regulation, NRCS established a comprehensive framework to implement ACEP, and standardized criteria for implementing the program, provided program participants with predictability when they initiate an application and convey an easement. On February 27, 2015, NRCS published an interim rule to implement ACEP. NRCS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the administration of ACEP based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-AA61.
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) also helps the Department ensure that our national forests and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change. Through CSP, NRCS provides financial and technical assistance to eligible producers to conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources on their land. NRCS makes funding for CSP available nationwide on a continuous application basis. In fiscal year 2014, NRCS enrolled about 9.6 million acres and now CSP enrollment exceeds 60 million acres, about the size of Iowa and Indiana combined. On November 5, 2014, NRCS published an interim rule to implement provisions of the 2014 Farm bill that amended CSP. Key changes included: Limiting eligible land to that in production for at least 4 of the 6 years preceding February 7, 2014, the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill; requiring contract offers to meet stewardship threshold for at least two priority resource concerns and meet or exceed one additional priority resource concern by the end of the stewardship contract; allowing enrollment of lands that are protected by an agricultural land easement under the newly authorized ACEP; and allowing enrollment of lands that are in the last year of the Conservation Reserve Program. NRCS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the administration of CSP based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-AA63.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is another voluntary conservation program that helps agricultural producers in a manner that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals. Through EQIP, agricultural producers receive financial and technical assistance to implement structural and management conservation practices that optimize environmental benefits on working agricultural land. Through EQIP, producers addressed their conservation needs on over 11 million acres in fiscal year 2014. EQIP has been instrumental in helping communities respond to drought. On December 12, 2014, NRCS published an interim rule that implemented changes mandated by 2014 Farm Bill and addressed a few key discretionary provisions, including, adding waiver authority to irrigation history requirements, incorporation of Tribal Conservation Advisory Councils where appropriate, and clarifying provisions related to Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) associated with Animal Feeding Operations (AFO). NRCS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the administration of EQIP based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-AA62.
The 2014 Farm Bill relinked highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation compliance with eligibility for premium support paid under the federal crop insurance program. The Farm Service Agency implemented these provisions through an interim rule published on April, 24, 2015. Since publication of the interim rule, more than 98.2 percent of producers met the requirement to certify conservation compliance to qualify for crop insurance premium support payments. Implementing these provisions for conservation compliance is expected to extend conservation provisions for an additional 1.5 million acres of highly erodible lands and 1.1 million acres of wetlands, which will reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat. Through this action, NRCS modified the existing
Food security is important for sustainable economic growth of developing nations and the long-term economic prosperity and security of the United States. Unfortunately, global food insecurity is expected to rise in the next five years. Food security means having a reliable source of nutritious and safe food and sufficient resources to purchase it. USDA has a role in curbing this distressing trend through programs such as Food for Progress and President Obama's Feed the Future Initiative and through new technology-based solutions, such as the development of genetically engineered plants, that improves yields and reduces post-harvest loss.
The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) will issue a final rule for the Local and Regional procurement (LRP) Program as authorized in section 3207 of the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA implemented a successful LRP pilot program under the authorities of the 2008 Farm Bill. LRP ties to the President's 2014 Trade Policy Agenda and works with developing nations to alleviate poverty and foster economic growth to provide better markets for U.S. exporters. LRP is expected to help alleviate hunger for millions of individuals in food insecure countries. LRP supports development activities that strengthen the capacity of food-insecure developing countries, and build resilience and address the causes of chronic food insecurity while also supporting USDA's other food assistance programs, including the McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole). In addition, the program can be used to fill food availability gaps generated by unexpected emergencies. LRP complements ongoing activities under the McGovern-Dole Program, improves dietary diversity and nutrition, and supports the sustainability of school-feeding programs as they transition to full host-government ownership. The final rule will enable FAS and its partners to strengthen the capacity of host-governments to implement their own homegrown school feeding programs. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0551-AA87.
USDA uses science-based regulatory systems to allow for the safe development, use, and trade of products derived from new agricultural technologies. USDA continues to regulate the importation, interstate movement, and field-testing of newly developed genetically engineered (GE) organisms that qualify as “regulated articles” to ensure they do not pose a threat to plant health before they can be commercialized. These science-based evaluations facilitate the safe introduction of new agricultural production options and enhance public and international confidence in these products. As a part of this effort, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will publish a proposed rule to revise its regulations and align them with current authorizations by incorporating the noxious weed authority and regulate GE organisms that pose plant pest or weed risks in a manner that balances oversight and risk, and that is based on the best available science. The regulatory framework being developed will enable more focused, risk-based regulation of GE organisms that pose plant pest or noxious weed risks and will implement regulatory requirements only to the extent necessary to achieve the APHIS protection goal. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AE15.
A plentiful supply of safe and nutritious food is essential to the well-being of every family and the healthy development of every child in America. Science has established strong links between diet, health, and productivity. Even small improvements in the average diet, fostered by USDA, may yield significant health and economic benefits. However, foodborne illness is still a common, costly—yet largely preventable—public health problem, even though the U.S. food supply system is one of the safest in the world. USDA is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to safe food through a farm-to-table approach to reduce and prevent foodborne illness. To help ensure a plentiful supply of food, the Department detects and quickly responds to new invasive species and emerging agricultural and public health situations.
USDA's domestic nutrition assistance programs serve one in four Americans annually. The Department is committed to making benefits available to every eligible person who wishes to participate in the major nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the cornerstone of the nutrition assistance safety net, which helped over 46 million Americans—more than half of whom were children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities—put food on the table in 2014. The Department will soon propose changes to eligibility requirements for SNAP retail food stores to ensure access to nutrition foods for home preparation and consumption for the families most vulnerable to food insecurity. While the ultimate objective is for economic opportunities to make nutrition assistance unnecessary for as many families as possible, we will ensure that these vital programs remain ready to serve all eligible people who need them.
The Department is also committed to helping ensure children have access to healthy, balanced meals throughout the day, as mandated by HHFKA, through the USDA child nutrition programs, including school, child care and summer meal programs. The summer meal programs have seen a historic increase in participation, with 11 million more meals served in 2015 compared to the previous summer, serving a total of more than 187 million meals at over 50,000 summer meal sites throughout the country.
The Administration has set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. On school days, children who participate in both the breakfast and lunch programs consume as many as half of their calories at school. The Department must ensure that all foods served in school contribute to good health, and the HHFKA provided new authority to set common-sense nutrition standards for food sold throughout the school day. To help accomplish this goal, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will publish three rules implementing provisions of the HHFKA.
FNS published an interim rule on June 28, 2013, for Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as required by HHFKA. Section 208 requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools, outside the school meal programs, on the school campus, and at any time during the school day. FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the interim rule based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE09.
FNS published the proposed rule, Meal Pattern Revisions Related to the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, on January 15, 2015, to implement section 221 of the HHFKA. This section requires USDA to review and update, no less frequently than once every 10 years, requirements for meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) to ensure that meals are consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and relevant nutrition science. FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the proposed rule based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE18.
FNS published the proposed rule, Local School Wellness Policy Implementation and School Nutrition Environment Information, on February 28, 2014, to implement section 204 of the HHFKA. As a result of meal pattern changes in the school meals programs, students are now eating 16 percent more vegetables and there was a 23 percent increase in the selection of fruit at lunch. This Act requires each local educational agency participating in Federal child nutrition programs to establish, for all schools under its jurisdiction, a local school wellness policy to maintain this momentum. The HHFKA requires that the wellness policy include goals for nutrition, nutrition education, physical activity, and other school-based activities that promote student wellness. In addition, the HHFKA requires that local educational agencies ensure stakeholder participation in development of local school wellness policies; periodically assess compliance with the policies; and disclose information about the policies to the public. FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the proposed rule based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE25.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) continue to enforce and improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS published a proposed rule on May 13, 2015, that would require non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter to be condemned and promptly euthanized. Currently, FSIS allows veal calves that are unable to rise from a recumbent position to be set aside and warmed or rested, and presented for slaughter if they regain the ability to walk. FSIS has found that this practice may contribute to the inhumane treatment of the veal calves. This rule will improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act by encouraging improved treatment of veal calves, as well as improve inspection efficiency by allowing FSIS inspection program personnel to devote more time to activities related to food safety. FSIS is currently developing a final rule to implement these changes based on public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AD54.
USDA has been a leader in the Federal government at implementing innovative practices to rein in costs and increase efficiencies. By taking steps to find efficiencies and cut costs, USDA employees have achieved savings and cost avoidances of over $1.4 billion in recent years. Some of these results came from relatively smaller, common-sense initiatives such as the $1 million saved by streamlining the mail handling at one of the USDA mailrooms or the consolidation of the Department's cell phone contracts, which is saving taxpayers over $5 million per year. Other results have come from larger-scale activities, such as the focus on reducing non-essential travel that has yielded over $400 million in efficiencies. Overall, these results have allowed us to do more with less during a time when such stewardship of resources has been critical to meeting the needs of those that we serve.
While these proactive steps have given USDA the tools to carry out our mission-critical work, ensuring that USDA's millions of customers receive stronger service, they are matters relating to agency management, personnel, public property, and/or contracts, and as such they are not subject to the notice and comment requirements for rulemaking codified at 5 U.S.C. 553. Consequently, they are not included in the Department's regulatory agenda. For more information about the USDA efforts to cut costs and modernize operations via the Blueprint for Stronger Service Initiative, see
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” USDA continues to review its existing regulations and information collections to evaluate the continued effectiveness in addressing the circumstances for which the regulations were implemented. As part of this ongoing review to maximize the cost-effectiveness of its regulatory programs, USDA will publish a
USDA has identified the following regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and analysis. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list are completed actions, which do not appear in the Regulatory Agenda. You can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions sections) on
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Budgetary impact on FNS is expected to be limited. Photo EBT card implementation in multiple States may require additional Federal staff for review and approval of implementation plans and for on-going monitoring via management evaluations.
As a result of this rule, States that exercise the option to implement photos on EBT cards would incur costs associated with development of an implementation plan, State staff training, client training, and retailer training. It is expected that providing guidance or oversight of these requirements would fall under the standard purview of these agencies and could be absorbed by existing staff. State Agencies are responsible for approximately 50% of SNAP administration costs, which would include the costs associated with implementing and maintaining photo EBT cards.
Recent attempts to implement photographs on the EBT card have proven difficult for some States. This rule will expand on current program regulations to provide clarification and more detailed guidance to States implementing the photo EBT option and ensure program access is protected.
Although the complexity of factors that influence overall food consumption and obesity prevent us from defining a level of dietary change or disease or cost reduction that is attributable to the rule, there is evidence that standards like those in the rule will positively influence and perhaps directly improve
Any rule-induced benefit of healthier eating by school children would be accompanied by costs, at least in the short term. Healthier food may be more expensive than unhealthy food either in raw materials, preparation, or both and this greater expense would be distributed among students, schools, and the food industry.
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
In addition, recipients under the LRP Pilot generally prefer locally and regionally sourced food over food sourced from other areas making it more suitable for food preparation and more accepted by school-aged children. This acceptability and availability would also impact the small scale producers who would experience an increase in demand and help them achieve economies of scale.
To implement section 6209, the Agency plans to publish a single rule that will modify each of the included programs accordingly. While the specific provisions may vary from program to program, the rule will, at minimum, specify for each program:
• The performance measures required to be collected by the statute (
• Who is responsible for providing those metrics, and the time frame over which the metrics will be collected (this could vary depending on whether a grant or a loan/guaranteed loan is awarded).
In addition, the Agency is seeking comments regarding this interim rule to guide its efforts in drafting the final rule for the Broadband Loan Program. The Comment Date ends September 28, 2015.
In an attempt to enhance the Broadband Loan Program and to acknowledge growing criticism of funding competitive areas, the Agency proposed to amend the program's regulations on May 11, 2007, at 72 FR 26742. As the Agency began analysis of the public comments it received on the proposed regulations, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) was working its way through Congress. On March 14, 2011, the Agency published an interim rule implementing the requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill and started accepting applications. The Agency did not receive any significant comments to the interim rule and published a final rule on February 6, 2013. With the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) section 6104, Public Law 113-79 (Feb. 7, 2014), additional requirements were added to the Broadband Loan Program, including the prioritization of approving applications, a minimum benchmark of broadband service, a more transparent public notice requirement, and the first statutorily required reporting standards, all of which are implemented in the rule.
Areas with low population size, locations that have experienced persistent population loss and an aging population, or places where population is widely dispersed over demanding terrain generally have difficulty attracting broadband service providers. These characteristics can make the fixed cost of providing broadband access too high, or limit potential demand, thus depressing the profitability of providing service. Clusters of lower service exist in sparsely populated areas, such as the Dakotas, eastern Montana, northern Minnesota, and eastern Oregon. Other low-service areas, such as the Missouri-Iowa border and Appalachia, have aging and declining numbers of residents. Nonetheless, rural areas in some States (such as Nebraska, Kansas, and Vermont) have higher-than expected broadband service, given their population characteristics, suggesting that policy, economic, and social factors can overcome common barriers to broadband expansion.
Most employment growth in the U.S. over the last several decades has been in the service sector, a sector especially conducive for broadband applications. Broadband allows rural areas to compete for low- and high-end service jobs, from call centers to software development. Rural businesses have been adopting more e-commerce and Internet practices, improving efficiency and expanding market reach. Some rural retailers use the Internet to satisfy supplier requirements. The farm sector, a pioneer in rural Internet use, is increasingly comprised of farm businesses that purchase inputs and make sales online. Farm household characteristics such as age, education, presence of children, and household income are significant factors in adopting broadband Internet use, whereas distance from urban centers is not a factor. Larger farm businesses are more apt to use broadband in managing their operation; the more multifaceted the farm business, the more the farm used the Internet.
The 2015 subsidy rate is 18.69 percent. The available FY 2015 budget authority for this program is $4.5 million, which will provide a program level of $24.077 million in outlays at the current subsidy rate. Since the Interim Regulation for the Broadband Program was published in March of 2011, 27 applications have been received for an average of 7 loan applications per year. The applications range in size and may cover requests for funding for many communities. All of the pre-loan data collected by the applicant is generally submitted to RUS at the same time. The annual burden for preparation and submission per respondent for the pre-loan data is estimated to be 400 hours per response, response to the public notice filing requirement is 1.5 hours per response, and the preparation of loan documents is estimated at 24 hours per response.
The Agency estimates the cost to respondents will be at $108,325. The overall hours spent per application and cost to respondents did not change from the former regulation. The projected change in the overall cost to the government is minimal compared with the former projections, only $366. The burden of review breaks out into the following fashion: It is projected that there will be one more hour for the engineering analysis and financial analysis per application. The initial financial review and initial engineering review stay the same as it is under the previous regulation, as does the loan closing attorney and clerical assistance. Finally, it is estimated that the Loan Closing-Analyst time per application will increase by a half hour.
The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are the following:
• Provides an opportunity for public comment in program regulations.
• Provides a regulatory framework for NRCS to implement a consolidated conservation easement program.
• Provides transparency to the public potential applicants on NRCS program requirements.
The primary costs imposed by this regulation are the following:
• The costs incurred by private landowners are negative or zero, since this is a voluntary program, and they are compensated for the rights that they transfer.
• Other costs incurred by society through market changes are localized or negligible.
The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are the folowing:
• Provides continued consistency for the NRCS to implement EQIP.
• Provides transparency to potential applicants on NRCS program requirements.
The primary costs imposed by this regulation are the following:
• All program participants must follow the same requirements, even though they are very different types of agricultural operations in different resource contexts.
• Most program participants are required to contribute at least 25 percent of the resources needed to implement program practices. However, such costs are standard for such financial assistance programs.
CSP is available to all producers, regardless of operation size or crops produced, in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Caribbean and Pacific Island areas. Eligible lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pastureland, rangeland, nonindustrial private forest land, and agricultural land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe. Applicants may include individuals, legal entities, joint operations, or Indian tribes.
CSP pays participants for conservation performance, the higher the performance, the higher the payment. It provides two possible types of payments. An annual payment is available for installing new conservation activities and maintaining existing
Through five-year contracts, NRCS makes payments as soon as practical after October 1 of each fiscal year for contract activities installed and maintained in the previous year. A person or legal entity may have more than one CSP contract but, for all CSP contracts combined, may not receive more than $40,000 in any year or more than $200,000 during any five-year period.
The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are the following:
• Provides continued consistency for the NRCS to implement CSP.
• Provides transparency to potential applicants on NRCS program requirements.
The primary costs imposed by this regulation are that all program participants must follow the same basic programmatic requirements, even though they are very different types of agricultural operations in different resource contexts.
The 2014 Act further identifies CSP as a contributing program authorized to accomplish the purposes of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) (subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended). RCPP replaces the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP), Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and the Great Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment control. Like the programs it replaces, RCPP will operate through regulations in place for contributing programs. The other contributing programs include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, and the new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. Commerce's mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which are responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of programs and services, ranging from trade promotion and economic development assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service.
Commerce touches Americans daily, in many ways—making possible the daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each day; supporting the development, gathering, and transmission of information essential to competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies and goods found in America's and the world's marketplace; and supporting environmental and economic health for the communities in which Americans live.
Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, Commerce works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers to:
• Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge science and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean exploration, to broadband deployment, and by protecting American innovations through the patent and trademark system;
• Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling community development and strengthening minority businesses and small manufacturers;
• Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent with our nation's economic and security interests;
• Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities; and
• Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and demographic data.
Commerce is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and Cabinet-level voice for job creation.
The Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that implement these policy and program priorities, several of which involve regulation of the private sector by Commerce.
The vast majority of the Commerce's programs and activities do not involve regulation. Of Commerce's 12 primary operating units, only the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be planning actions that are considered the “most important” significant preregulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2016. During the next year, NOAA plans to publish eight rulemaking actions that are designated as Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may also publish rulemaking actions designated as Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these actions is provided below.
Commerce has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations be written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The Secretary also requires that Commerce afford the public the maximum possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.
NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the environment. NOAA
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship, Commerce, through NOAA, conducts programs designed to provide a better understanding of the connections between environmental health, economics, and national security. Commerce's emphasis on “sustainable fisheries” is designed to boost long-term economic growth in a vital sector of the U.S. economy while conserving the resources in the public trust and minimizing any economic dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. Commerce is where business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into a “win-win” situation for the environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine fisheries, protects threatened and endangered marine and anadromous species and marine mammals, and promotes economic development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the national marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the national program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private organizations to operate commercial land-remote sensing satellite systems.
Commerce, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship of the global environment through effective management of the Nation's marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, and technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal responsibility for providing sound scientific observations, assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be made.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: Rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based tools and ecosystem approaches to management; increasing the populations of depleted, threatened, or endangered species and marine mammals by implementing recovery plans that provide for their recovery while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities; promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation and positioning services. In the environmental assessment and prediction area, goals include: Understanding climate change science and impacts, and communicating that understanding to government and private sector stakeholders enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National Weather Service; implementing reliable seasonal and interannual climate forecasts to guide economic planning; providing science-based policy advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial) changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term warning and forecast services for the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of fishery resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 nautical miles). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue in FY 2016, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area closures to protect fishery stocks.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best scientific information available, make the judgments needed to determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, including the selection of the preferred management measures, constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, together with draft implementing regulations and supporting documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to amending an existing approved FMP.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows NMFS to permit the collection of wild animals for scientific research or public display or to enhance the survival of a species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under the MMPA to establish a management regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries. The MMPA also established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes recommendations to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and the Interior and other Federal officials on protecting and conserving marine mammals. The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow for takings incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide certain exemptions for subsistence and
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the conservation of species that are determined to be “endangered” or “threatened,” and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the MMPA. NMFS manages marine and “anadromous” species, and FWS manages land and freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically imperiled species from extinction. Of the approximately 1,300 listed species found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters, NMFS has jurisdiction over approximately 60 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions are focused on determining whether any species under its responsibility is an endangered or threatened species and whether those species must be added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed species. In addition, under the ESA's procedural framework, Federal agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency that may affect one of the listed species or designated critical habitat, or is likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat that is under NMFS' jurisdiction.
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is undertaking eight actions that rise to the level of “most important” of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in this year's regulatory plan. A description of the eight regulatory plan actions is provided below.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and treaty compliance systems as well as by administering programs to prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered by foreign governments. The National Security Industrial Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales, provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense and address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices covering the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to promote effective export controls through cooperation with other Governments.
In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency review of the U.S. export control system with the goal of strengthening national security and the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors by focusing on the current threats and adapting to the changing economic and technological landscape. In August 2010, the President outlined an approach, known as the Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI), under which agencies that administer export controls will apply new criteria for determining what items need to be controlled and a common set of policies for determining when an export license is required. The control list criteria are to be based on transparent rules, which will reduce the uncertainty faced by our Allies, U.S. industry and its foreign customers, and will allow the Government to erect higher walls around the most sensitive export items in order to enhance national security.
Under the President's approach, agencies are to apply the criteria and revise the lists of munitions and dual-use items that are controlled for export so that they:
• Distinguish the transactions that should be subject to stricter levels of control from those where more permissive levels of control are appropriate;
• Create a “bright line” between the two current control lists to clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce Government and industry uncertainty about whether particular items are subject to the control of the State Department or the Commerce Department; and
• Are structurally aligned so that they potentially can be combined into a single list of controlled items.
BIS' current regulatory plan action is designed to implement the initial phase of the President's directive, which will add to BIS' export control purview, military related items that the President determines no longer warrant control under rules administered by the State Department.
As the agency responsible for leading the administration and enforcement of U.S. export controls on dual-use and other items warranting controls but not under the provisions of export control regulations administered by other departments, BIS plays a central role in the Administration's efforts to reform the export control system. Changing what we control, how we control it and how we enforce and manage our controls will help strengthen our national security by focusing our efforts on controlling the most critical products and technologies, and by enhancing the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors.
In FY 2011, BIS began implementing the ECRI with a final rule (76 FR 35275, June 16, 2011) implementing a license exception that authorizes exports, reexports and transfers to destinations that do not pose a national security concern, provided certain safeguards against diversion to other destinations are taken. Additionally, BIS began publishing proposed rules to add to its Commerce Control List (CCL), military items the President determined no longer warranted control by the Department of State. BIS continued to publish such proposed rules in FY 2012.
In FY 2013, BIS crossed an important milestone with publication of two final rules that began to put ECRI policies into place. An Initial Implementation rule (78 FR 22660, April 16, 2013) set in place the structure under which items the President determines no longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List are controlled on the Commerce Control List. It also revised license exceptions and regulatory definitions, including the definition of “specially designed” to make those exceptions and definitions clearer and to more closely align them with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and added to the CCL certain military aircraft, gas turbine engines and related items. A second final rule (78 FR 40892, July 8, 2012) followed on by adding to the CCL military vehicles, vessels of war submersible vessels, and auxiliary military equipment that President determined no longer warrant control on the USML.
BIS continued its ECRI efforts and by the end of fiscal year 2015 had published final rules adding to the CCL additional items that the President determined no longer warrant control under rules administered by the State Department in the following categories: Military training equipment; Explosives and energetic materials; Personal protective equipment; Launch vehicles and rockets; Spacecraft; and Military Electronics. During fiscal year 2015, BIS published proposed rules that would add to the CCL items related to: Fire control, range finder, optical and guidance and control equipment; Toxicological Agents; and Directed energy weapons. BIS expects to continue with publication of proposed and final rules to add items to the CCL as part it the ECRI in fiscal year 2016.
During fiscal year 2015, BIS initiated a process of evaluating the effectiveness of its ECRI efforts. The first action in this process was publication of a notice seeking public comments on the treatment of military aircraft and gas turbine engines, the first two categories of items added to the CCL by this initiative. The notice sought public input on whether the regulations are clear, do not inadvertently control items in normal commercial use as military items, account for technological developments, and properly implement the national security and foreign policy objectives of the reform effort. BIS anticipates that this will be the first in a series of such notices that will be published after the public has had time to develop experience with each regulation that added categories of items to the CCL.
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, “international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting” public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in E.O. 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
The Department of Commerce engages with numerous international bodies in various forums to promote the Department's priorities and foster regulations that do not “impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally.” E.O. 13609(a). For example, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is working with the European Patent Office to develop a new classification system for both offices' use. The Bureau of Industry and Security, along with the Department of State and Department of Defense, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls because they are conventional arms or items that have both military and civil uses. Other multilateral export control regimes include the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Australia Group, which lists items controlled for chemical and biological weapon nonproliferation purposes. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration works with other countries' regulatory bodies through regional fishery management organizations to develop fair and internationally-agreed-to fishery standards for the High Seas.
BIS is also engaged, in partnership with the Departments of State and Defense, in revising the regulatory framework for export control, through the President's Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). Through this effort, the United States Government is moving certain items currently controlled by the United States Military List (USML) to the Commerce Control List (CCL) in BIS' Export Administration Regulations. The objective of ECRI is to improve interoperability of U.S. military forces with those of allied countries, strengthen the U.S. industrial base by, among other things, reducing incentives for foreign manufacturers to design out and avoid U.S.-origin content and services, and allow export control officials to focus Government resources on transactions that pose greater concern. Once fully implemented, the new export control framework also will benefit companies in the United States seeking to export items through more flexible and less burdensome export controls.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the Department has identified several rulemakings as being associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Accordingly, the Agency is reviewing these rules to determine whether action under E.O. 13563 is appropriate. Some of these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in the Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for the Agency. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov.
Two rulemakings that are the product of the Agency's retrospective review are from BIS and NOAA. BIS' rule streamlining the support documentation requirements in the Export Administration Regulations, published March 13, 2015, was the first comprehensive revision of these requirements in twenty years. The rule reduced the paperwork burden on U.S. exporters without compromising regulatory objectives and clarified the remaining requirements to aid compliance.
NOAA continues to demonstrate great success in fishery sustainability managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with near-record landings and revenue accomplished while rebuilding stocks across the country and preventing overfishing. Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization in 2007, NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils have implemented annual catch limits and accountability measures in every fishery management plan under National Standard One of the act. Informed by a robust public process that gained input through a public summit (Managing our Nation's Fisheries), visits to each region and Council and multiple public hearings, NMFS took the experience gained from 8 years of implementation of National Standard One and has proposed multiple substantive, technical changes to the National Standard One rule that will improve implementation and continue to support healthy fisheries.
For more information, the most recent E.O. 13563 progress report for the Department can be found here:
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department consisting of three Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), nine Unified Combatant Commands, 17 Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field Activities. It has 1,304,807 military personnel and 866,923 civilians assigned as of June 30, 2015, and over 200 large and medium installations in the continental United States, U.S. territories, and foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and dispersion of DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, presents a challenge to the management of the Defense regulatory efforts under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” of September 30, 1993.
Because of its diversified nature, DoD is affected by the regulations issued by regulatory agencies such as the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing
DoD issues regulations that have an effect on the public and can be significant as defined in E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as an integral part of its program, not only receives coordinating actions from other agencies, but coordinates with the agencies that are affected by its regulations as well.
The Department needs to function at a reasonable cost, while ensuring that it does not impose ineffective and unnecessarily burdensome regulations on the public. The rulemaking process should be responsive, efficient, cost-effective, and both fair and perceived as fair. This is being done in DoD while reacting to the contradictory pressures of providing more services with fewer resources. The Department of Defense, as a matter of overall priority for its regulatory program, fully incorporates the provisions of the President's priorities and objectives under E.O. 12866.
As the President noted in E.O. 13609, “international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting” public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in E.O. 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
The Department of Defense, along with the Departments of State and Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls. DoD has been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and proliferation concern. DoD will continue to assess new and emerging technologies to ensure items that provide critical military and intelligence capabilities are properly controlled on international export control regime lists.
Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identification Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Several are of particular interest to small businesses. The entries on this list are completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for DoD. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. We will continue to identify retrospective review regulations as they are published and report on the progress of the overall plan biannually. DoD's final agency plan and all updates to the plan can be found at:
1. Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in excess of costs.
The Department plans to finalize the following Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rules:
• Requirements Relating to Supply Chain Risk (DFARS case 2012-D050). This final rule implements section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, as amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 806 requires contracting officers to evaluate an offerors supply chain risk when purchasing information technology related to national security systems. This rule enables agencies to exclude sources identified as having a supply chain risk from consideration for award of a covered contract, in order to minimize the potential risk for supplies and services purchased by DoD to maliciously degrade the integrity and operation of sensitive information technology systems. The cost impact will vary by solicitation or contract, depending on the level of potential harm to DoD systems that may be avoided by excluding a source with an unacceptable supply chain risk. However, DoD anticipates significant savings to taxpayers by reducing the risk of unsafe products entering the supply chain, which pose a serious threat to sensitive government information technology systems and put in jeopardy the safety of our military forces.
• Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services (DFARS case 2013-D018). This final rule implements section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015. Section 941 requires cleared defense contractors to report penetrations of networks and information systems and allows DoD personnel access to equipment and information to assess the impact of reported penetrations. Section 1632 requires that a contractor designated as operationally critical must report each time a cyber-incident occurs on that contractor's network or information systems. Ultimately, DoD anticipates significant savings to taxpayers as a result of this rule, by improving information security for DoD information that resides in or transits through contractor systems and a cloud environment. Recent high-profile breaches of Federal information show the need to ensure that information security protections are clearly, effectively, and consistently addressed in contracts. This rule will help protect covered defense information or other Government data from compromise and protect against the loss of operationally critical support capabilities, which could directly impact national security.
• Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts—Further Implementation (DFARS case 2014-D005). This final rule further implements section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015. Section 818, as modified by section 817, addresses required sources of electronic parts for defense contractors and subcontractors. This rule requires DoD and its contractors and subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, to acquire electronic parts from trusted suppliers. The rule also requires DoD contractors and subcontractors that are not the original component manufacturer, to notify the Government if it is not possible to obtain an electronic part from a trusted supplier and to be responsible for the inspection, test, and authentication of such parts in accordance with existing industry standards. Such validation of new parts and new suppliers are steps that a prudent contractor would take notwithstanding this rule. The benefits associated with avoiding the acquisition of counterfeit electronic parts, which could directly impact national security, far outweigh the minimal cost impact associated with the notification requirement imposed by this rule.
2. Rulemakings of particular interest to small businesses.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule—
• Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS case 2015-D013). This proposed rule implements section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 regarding the Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans. The Test Program was established under section 834 of the NDAAs for FYs 1990 and 1992 to determine whether the negotiation and administration of comprehensive small business subcontracting plans would result in an increase of opportunities provided for small business concerns under DoD contracts. A comprehensive subcontracting plan (CSP) can be negotiated on a corporate, division, or sector level, rather than contract by contract. This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to: (1) Extend the Test Program through December 31, 2017; (2) require contracting officers to consider an offerors failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its CSP in past performance evaluations; and (3) inform program participants that a CSP will not be negotiated with a contractor that did not meet the small business goals negotiated in its prior CSP. This rule is of particular interest to small businesses because it holds prime contractors that are participating in the program accountable for the small business goals established in their CSP, resulting in increased business opportunities for small business subcontractors.
3. Rulemakings that streamline regulations, reduce unjustified burdens, and minimize burdens on small businesses.
The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule—
• Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items (DFARS case 2014-D026). This final rule requires the use of the electronic contract attachments to record and track warranty data and source of repair information for serialized items in the Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP) system. While contracting officers are encouraged to use the electronic attachments, currently, it is not mandatory in the DFARS. As a result, offerors may propose warranty terms in paper form, which are later manually input into the PDREP system when a contract is awarded. On the other hand, the electronic contract attachments are designed to easily upload to the PDREP system, which reduces: (1) The potential burden of manually entering warranty terms in multiple places, and (2) inaccuracies in
4. Rules to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule—
• Clauses with Alternates—Small Business Programs (DFARS case 2015-D017). This final rule amends those contract clauses associated with small business programs that are prescribed for use with an “alternate.” A contracting officer selects a basic clause for inclusion in a contract based on the clause prescription contained in the DFARS. Some clause prescriptions require the use of “alternate” text within a basic clause depending on the circumstances of the acquisition. In lieu of listing the basic clause and any alternate text separately, this rule proposes to include in the regulation the full text of both the basic clause with the alternate clause. This new convention will facilitate selection of clauses with alternates using automated contract writing systems and ensure paragraphs from the basic clause that should be superseded by alternate text are not inadvertently included in the solicitation or contract. As a result, the terms of a solicitation and contract are clearly communicated to offerors and contractors who consider such terms during proposal development and contract performance.
5. Rulemakings that have a significant international impact.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule—
• Contractors Performing Private Security Functions (DFARS case 2015-D021). During contingency operations, humanitarian or peace operations, or other military operations or exercises, DoD employs private security contractors (PSCs) to guard personnel, facilities, designated sites, or property of Federal agencies, the contractor or subcontractor, or a third party. Requirements for DoD contractors performing private security functions outside the United States are currently contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and supplemented by the DFARS. This rule proposes to streamline the regulation by consolidating all terms and conditions for DoD PSCs in a single DFARS clause, which can be updated by DoD in a more efficient and timely manner. This rule will also provide an alternative to the high-level quality assurance standard required by the DFARS for PSCs. Contract quality requirements fall into four general categories, depending on the extent of quality assurance needed by the Government for the acquisition involved. In the case of PSC's, the high-level quality standard, “Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations—Requirements with Guidance, ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012” is mandatory. The alternative proposed by this rule for PSCs (ISO 18788: Management System Private Security Operations—Requirements with Guidance) is substantially the same as ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 and is more widely accepted on an international basis.
Specific DoD Priorities: For this regulatory plan, there are five specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established regulatory principles. DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious health and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is that each of the priorities described below promulgates regulations to offset the resource impacts of Federal decisions on the public or to improve the quality of public life, such as those regulations concerning acquisition, health affairs, transition assistance, and cyber security.
DPAP continuously reviews the DFARS and continues to lead Government efforts to—
• Improve the presentation, clarity, and streamlining of the regulation by: (1) Implementing the new convention to construct clauses with alternates in a manner whereby the alternate clauses are included in full-text; (2) removing guidance that does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedure of the Department or impose a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, which is more appropriately addressed in the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information; and (3) removing obsolete reporting or other requirements imposed on contractors. Such improvements ensure that the regulation contracting officers, contractors, and offerors have a clear understanding of the rules for doing business with the Department of Defense.
• Obtain early engagement with industry on procurement topics of high public interest by: (1) Utilizing the DPAP Defense Acquisition Regulation System Web site to obtain early public feedback on newly enacted legislation that impacts the Department's acquisition regulations, prior to initiating rulemaking to draft the implementing rules; and (2) holding public meetings to solicit industry feedback on proposed rulemakings.
• Employ methods to facilitate and improve efficiency of the contracting process such as: (1) Requiring the use of electronic forms; and (2) establishing that electronic contract documents contained in Electronic Data Access system are official contract documents. Use of electronic means to accomplish the contracting process: (1) Reduces the burden on both industry and the Department associated with manual and duplicative data entry, and (2) removes limitations on access to information.
The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of wartime readiness and peacetime health care for those entitled to DoD medical care and benefits by operating an extensive network of military medical treatment facilities supplemented by services furnished by civilian health care providers and facilities through the TRICARE program as administered under DoD contracts. TRICARE is a major health care program designed to improve the management and integration of DoD's health care delivery system.
The Department of Defense's Military Health System (MHS) continues to meet the challenge of providing the world's finest combat medicine and aeromedical evacuation, while supporting peacetime health care for those entitled to DoD medical care and benefits at home and abroad. The MHS brings together the worldwide health care resources of the Uniformed Services (often referred to as “direct care,” usually within military treatment facilities) and supplements this capability with services furnished by network and non-network civilian health care professionals, institutions, pharmacies, and suppliers, through the TRICARE program as administered under DoD contracts, to provide access to high quality health care services while maintaining the capability to support military operations. The TRICARE program serves 9.5 million Active Duty Service Members, National Guard and Reserve members, retirees, their families, survivors, and certain former spouses worldwide. TRICARE continues to offer an increasingly integrated and comprehensive health care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a manner consistent with the law, industry
The Defense Health Agency plans to publish the following rule—
• Proposed Rule: TRICARE Mental Health and Substance Abuse. This rule proposes revisions to the TRICARE regulation to reduce administrative barriers to access to mental health benefit coverage and to improve access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for TRICARE beneficiaries, consistent with earlier Department of Defense and Institute of Medicine recommendations, current standards of practice in mental health and addition medicine, and governing laws. This proposed rule has four main objectives: (1) To eliminate of quantitative and qualitative treatment limitations on SUD and mental health benefit coverage and align beneficiary cost-sharing for mental health and SUD benefits with those applicable to medical/surgical benefits; (2) to expand covered mental health and SUD treatment under TRICARE, to include coverage of intensive outpatient programs and treatment of opioid dependence; (3) to streamline the requirements for institutional providers to become TRICARE authorized providers; and (4) to develop TRICARE reimbursement methodologies for newly recognized mental health and SUD intensive outpatient programs and opioid treatment programs. DoD anticipates publishing the proposed rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.
The Department of Defense plans to publish rules regarding transition assistance for military personnel and sexual assault prevention—
• Interim Final Rule: Transition Assistance for Military Personnel (TAP). This rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for administration of the DoD Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The goal of TAP is to prepare all eligible members of the Military Services for a transition to civilian life, including preparing them to meet Career Readiness Standards (CRS). The TAP provides information and training to ensure Service members leaving Active Duty and eligible Reserve Component Service members being released from active duty are prepared for their next step in life whether pursuing additional education, finding a job in the public or private sector, starting their own business or other form of self-employment, or returning to school or an existing job. Service members receive training to meet CRS through the Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curricula, including a core curricula and individual tracks focused on Accessing Higher Education, Career Technical Training, and Entrepreneurship. All Service members who are separating, retiring, or being released from a period of 180 days or more of continuous Active Duty must complete all mandatory requirements of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act, which includes pre-separation counseling to develop an Individual Transition Plan (ITP) and identify their career planning needs; attend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Briefings I and II to understand what VA benefits the Service member earned, how to apply for them, and leverage them for a positive economic outcome; and attend the Department of Labor Employment Workshop (DOLEW), which focuses on the mechanics of resume writing, networking, job search skills, interview skills, and labor market research. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final rule in the first quarter of FY 2016.
• Interim Final Rule; Amendment: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program. The purpose of this rule is to implement DoD policy and assign responsibilities for the SAPR Program on prevention, response, and oversight of sexual assault. The goal is for DoD to establish a culture free of sexual assault through an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.
• Interim Final Rule; Amendment: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures. This rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance and procedures for the SAPR Program. It establishes processes and procedures for the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination Kit, the multidisciplinary Case Management Group, and guidance on how to handle sexual assault, SAPR minimum program standards, SAPR training requirements, and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military. The DoD goal is a culture free of sexual assault through an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.
The Department of Defense plans to publish the final rule for the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) Activities that implements statutory requirements for mandatory cyber incident reporting while maintaining the voluntary cyber threat information sharing program.
• Interim Final Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security (CS) Activities. DoD revised its DoD-DIB Cybersecurity (CS) Activities regulation to mandate reporting of cyber incidents that result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on a covered contractor information system or covered defense information residing therein, or on a contractor's ability to provide operationally critical support, and modify eligibility criteria to permit greater participation in the voluntary DoD-Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) information sharing program. DoD anticipates publishing the final rule in the fourth quarter of FY 2016.
The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) A complete and up-to-date SAPR Policy consisting of this part and 32 CFR 105, to include comprehensive SAPR policy guidance on the prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Guidance and policy with which the DoD may establish a culture free of sexual assault, through an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well being of all persons covered by this part and 32 CFR 105.
(3) Requirement to provide care that is gender-responsive, culturally competent, and recovery-oriented. Sexual assault patients shall be given priority, and treated as emergency cases. Emergency care shall consist of emergency healthcare and the offer of a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE). The victim shall be advised that even if a SAFE is declined the victim is encouraged (but not mandated) to receive medical care, psychological care, and victim advocacy.
(4) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines, protocols, and guidelines for training materials shall focus on awareness, prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
(5) An immediate, trained sexual assault response capability shall be available for each report of sexual assault in all locations, including in deployed locations.
(6) Victims of sexual assault shall be protected from coercion, retaliation, and reprisal.
The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) A complete SAPR Policy consisting of this part and 32 CFR 103, to include comprehensive SAPR procedures to implement the DoD Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program, which is the DoD policy on prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Guidance and procedures with which the DoD may establish a culture free of sexual assault, through an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons covered by this part (32 CFR 105) and 32 CFR 103.
(3) Requirement that medical care and SAPR services are gender-responsive, culturally competent, and recovery-oriented. A 24 hour, 7 day per week sexual assault response capability for all locations, including deployed areas, shall be established for persons covered in this part. An immediate, trained sexual assault response capability shall be available for each report of sexual assault in all locations, including in deployed locations. Sexual assault victims shall be given priority, and treated as emergency cases. Emergency care shall consist of emergency medical care and the offer of a SAFE. The victim shall be advised that even if a SAFE is declined the victim shall be encouraged (but not mandated) to receive medical care, psychological care, and victim advocacy.
(4) Command sexual assault awareness and prevention programs and DoD law enforcement and criminal justice procedures that enable persons to be held appropriately accountable for their actions, shall be supported by all commanders.
(5) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines, protocols, and guidelines for training materials shall focus on awareness, prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
(6) Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC), SAPR Victim Advocates (VA), and other responders will assist sexual assault victims regardless of Service affiliation.
(7) Service member and adult military dependent victims of sexual assault shall receive timely access to comprehensive medical and psychological treatment, including emergency care treatment and services, as described in this part and 32 CFR 103.
(8) Military Service members who file Unrestricted and Restricted Reports of sexual assault shall be protected from reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for filing a report.
(9) Service members and military dependents 18 years and older who have been sexually assaulted have two reporting options: Unrestricted or Restricted Reporting. Unrestricted Reporting of sexual assault is favored by the DoD. However, Unrestricted Reporting may represent a barrier for victims to access services, when the victim desires no command or DoD law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the DoD recognizes a fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure vehicle via the Restricted Reporting option. Regardless of whether the victim elects Restricted or Unrestricted Reporting, confidentiality of medical information shall be maintained in accordance with DoD 6025.18-R.
(10) Service members who are on active duty but were victims of sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to receive SAPR services under either reporting option. The DoD shall provide support to an active duty Military Service member regardless of when or where the sexual assault took place.
(11) Requirement to establish a DoD-wide certification program with a national accreditor to ensure all sexual assault victims are offered the assistance of a SARC or SAPR VA who has obtained this certification.
(12) Implementing training standards that cover general SAPR training for Service members, and contain specific standards for: Accessions, annual, professional military education and leadership development training, pre- and post-deployment, pre-command, General and Field Officers and SES, military recruiters, civilians who supervise military, and responders trainings.
(13) Requires Military Departments to establish procedures for supporting the DoD Safe Helpline in accordance with Guidelines for the DoD Safe Helpline for the referral database provide timely response to victim feedback, publicize the DoD Safe Helpline to SARCs and Service members and at military confinement facilities.
(14) Added additional responsibilities for the DoD SAPRO Director (develop metrics for measuring effectiveness, act as liaison between DoD and other agencies with regard to SAPR, oversee development of strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives, quarterly include Military Service Academies as a SAPR IPT standard agenda item, semi-annually meet with the Superintendents of the Military Service Academies, and develop and administer standardized and voluntary surveys for survivors of sexual assault to comply with section 1726 of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2014, Public Law 113-66.
(15) Updates text throughout the issuance to reflect Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) interface with MCIO case management systems (rather than Military Service sexual assault case management systems) and procedures for entering final case disposition information into the database.
Dependents of eligible Service members are entitled to career change counseling and information on suicide prevention.
These revisions will: Institutionalize the implementation of the VOW Act of 2011; require mandatory participation in the Department of Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop (EW); implement the Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum; require development of an Individual Transition Plan (ITP); enhance tracking of attendance at TAP events; implement of mandatory Career Readiness Standards (CRS) for separating Service members; and, incorporate a CAPSTONE event to document transition readiness and reinforce Commanding Officer accountability and support for the needs of individual Service members. This rule improves the process of conducting transition services for eligible separating Service members across the Military Services and establishes the data collection foundation to build short-, medium-, and long-term program outcomes.
The task force delivered its initial recommendations to the President in December 2011 which required implementation of procedures to document Service member participation, and to demonstrate Military Service compliance with 10 U.S.C. chapter 58 requirements. The Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011 mandated transitioning Service member's participation in receiving counseling and training on VA Benefits. VA developed VA Benefits I and II Briefings to meet this mandate. The VOW Act also mandated transitioning Service members to received counseling and informed of services regarding employment assistance. The Department of Labor revised its curriculum to meet this mandate with the Department of Labor Employment Workshop. The VOW requirements have been codified in 10 U.S.C. chapter 58 and attendance to all Transition GPS curricula is now documented.
The redesigned TAP was developed around four core recommendations:
Adopt standards of career readiness for transitioning Service members: Service members should leave the military having met clearly defined standards of career readiness.
Implement a revamped TAP curriculum: Service members should be provided with a set of value-added, individually tailored training programs and services to equip them with the set of tools they need to pursue their post-military goals successfully.
Implement a CAPSTONE: Service members should be afforded the opportunity, shortly before they depart the military, to review and verify that they have met the CRS and received the services they desire and to be steered to the resources and benefits available to them as Veterans.
Implement a Military Life Cycle (MLC) transition model: Transition preparation for Service members should occur over the entire span of their military careers not just in the last few months of their military service.
Implementation of these recommendations transforms a Service member' experience during separating, retiring, demobilizing, or deactivating to make the most informed career decisions by equipping them with the tools they need to make a successful transition.
The rule discusses a redesigned program which implements, the transition-related provisions of the VOW Act and recommendations of the Task Force to offer a tailored curriculum providing Service members with useful and quality instruction with connections to the benefits and resources available to them as Veterans. At the heart of the redesign is the new set of CRS. Just as Service members must meet military mission readiness standards while on Active Duty, Service members will meet CRS before their transition to civilian life.
Spouses of eligible Service members are entitled to the DOLEW, job placement counseling, DoD/VA-administered survivor information, financial planning assistance, transition plan assistance, VA-administered home loan services, housing assistance benefits information, and counseling on responsible borrowing practices. Dependents of eligible service members are entitled to career change counseling and information on suicide prevention.
In President Obama's speech in August of 2011 at the Washington Navy Yard, he used the term “Reverse Boot Camp” to demonstrate his vision for a redesigned TAP to increase the preparedness of Service members to successfully transition from military service to civilian communities. The President's use of language initiated an interagency discussion on an approach to mirror the Military Services' basic or initial entry training programs. This approach would require the Military Services to devote approximately 9 to 13 weeks, depending on curriculum development, outcome measures, assessments and individual military readiness and cultural differences, to afford Service members the opportunity to use all aspects of a rigorous transition preparation program.
While no cost estimates were conducted, this approach was deemed both expensive and would jeopardize DoD's ability to maintain mission readiness. Approximately 200,000-250,000 Service members leave DOD each year. To concentrate on transition preparation during the last 9 to 13 weeks of an individual's military career would not be workable since mission readiness could not absorb the impact of the void. Additionally, there would be an increased expense required to activate or mobilize Reserve Component or National Guard personnel for the 9 to 13 weeks prior to transition. Finally, logistical challenges could result from Service members dealing with TAP requirements while deployed. For example, units scheduled to mobilize would be delayed because a returning unit could occupy facilities (such as billeting, classrooms, and training areas) that the deploying units needed to train and prepare for mobilization.
A second alternative considered was establishment of regional residential transition centers staffed by personnel from all Military Services, the Departments of VA, Labor (DOL), and Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and the OPM. Transitioning Service members would be sent on temporary duty for a period of four to six weeks, 12 months prior to their separation or retirement date to receive transition services. Eligible Reserve Component Service members would be assigned to the centers as a continuation of their demobilization out-processing. The potential costs to build or modify existing facilities, or rent facilities that would meet regional residential transition center requirements, as well as costs for Service member travel to and from the regional centers, reduced the viability of this approach.
A third, less expensive option would have left the existing TAP program intact without increasing counselor and curriculum facilitation resources. This option would not have accountability systems and procedures to demonstrate compliance with the VOW Act that mandates pre-separation counseling, attendance at the DOL's three day Employment Workshop (DOLEW), and attendance at two VA briefings. Due to increasing Veteran unemployment and homeless percentages at the time of the decision, and the rebalancing of the military force, this cost neutral approach would not have the outcome based capability intended to develop career ready skills in transitioning Service members. This option, which would not have met the requirements of the law, would cost the Military Services approximately $70M versus the fiscal year 2013 (FY13) $122M for the implementation of the re-designed TAP.
The entire Transition GPS curriculum is now available online through Joint Knowledge Online (JKO); however, Service members must attend pre-separation counseling, VA briefings, and the DOLEW in person. All other curriculum can be accessed through the JKO virtual platform. The virtual curriculum (VC) was launched at the beginning of FY14. DoD expected a cost savings in FY14 due to use of the VC but the cost avoidance cannot be calculated as VC utilization is appropriate on a Service member-by-Service member basis.
Further, resource requirements for DoD become more predictable when transition assistance is provided at pre-determined points throughout the MLC TAP model, mitigating the impacts of surge periods when large numbers of Service members separate, demobilize or deactivate.
The FY13 cost to DoD to implement the TAP redesign was $122M and in FY14 DoD costs were $85M. The difference is attributed to both implementation costs of the updated program in FY13, and to efficiencies discovered as implementation was completed throughout FY14. These costs represent only the portion of the interagency program that is paid by the DoD. The cost covers Defense civilian and contracted staff (FTEs) salaries and benefits at 206 world-wide locations. Civilian and contract labor account for approximately 88% of total program costs in both fiscal years. The remaining costs include equipment, computers (purchase, maintenance and operations), Information Technology (IT) and architecture, data collection and sharing, Web site development, performance evaluation and assessments, curriculum development
The DoD provides military spouses the statutory requirements of TAP as prescribed in Title 10, United States Code. Other elements of TAP, prescribed by DoD policy, are available to spouses if resources and space permits. Military spouses can attend the brick and mortar Transition GPS curriculum at no cost on a nearby military installation. They can also take the entire Transition GPS curriculum online, virtually, at any time, from anywhere with a computer or laptop for free.
Many of our Veteran and Military Service Organizations, employers and local communities provide transition support services to local installations. Installation Commanders are strongly encouraged to permit access to Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) and Military Service Organizations (MSOs) to provide transition assistance-related events and activities in the United States and abroad at no cost to the government. Two memos signed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reinforce such access. The memos are effective within 60 days of the December 23 signing, and will remain in effect until the changes are codified within DoD. Access to installations is for the purpose of assisting Service members with their post-military disability process and transition resources and services. The costs to VSOs and MSOs would be any costs associated with salaries for paid VSO and MSO personnel. These organizations will pay for any costs associated with travel to and from military installations, as well as any materials they provide to separating Service members and their spouses. Costs to employers and community organizations supporting transition-related events and activities would be similar to those for VSOs and MSOs.
The DoD is dependent upon other federal agencies to deliver the redesigned TAP to transitioning Service members. The VA, DOL, SBA, Department of Education (ED), and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have proven to be invaluable partners in supporting the Transition GPS curriculum development and delivery, and in providing follow-on services required by a warm handover due to unmet CRS. These interagency partners strongly support TAP governance and performance measurement.
Although DoD cannot estimate the costs for its interagency partners, TAP provides the Service members with resources through the contributions of its interagency partners that should be identified as factors of total program cost. Transition assistance is a comprehensive interagency effort with contributions from every partner leveraged to provide support to the All-Volunteer Force as the Service members prepare to become Veterans. The interagency partners deliver the Transition GPS curriculum and one-on-one services across 206 military installations across the globe. DoD can only speak to TAP costs within the Defense fence line, but can discuss the value provided by interagency partners.
The DOL provides skilled facilitators that deliver the DOLEW, a mandatory element of the Transition GPS standardized curriculum. DOL's American Jobs Centers (AJCs) provide integral employment support to transitioning Service members and transitioned Veterans. The AJCs are identified as resources for the Service members during TAP which may increase visits from the informed Service members. The AJCs also support warm handovers of Service members who have identified employment as a transition goal on their ITP but do not meet the CRS for employment. DOL also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection, performance measurement, and standardization efforts, all of which represent costs to the organization.
The SBA provides the Transition GPS entrepreneurship track, Boots to Business, to educate transitioning Service members interested in starting their own business about the challenges small businesses face. Upon completing the Boots to Business track, the SBA allows Service members to access the SBA on-line entrepreneurship course, free of charge. The SBA then provides Service members the opportunity to be matched to a successful business person as a mentor. This is a tremendous commitment that must create additional costs for the SBA. The SBA offices continue to provide support to Veterans as they pursue business plan development or start up loans; provision of this support is in their charter, but the increased awareness provided through the Transition GPS curriculum is likely to increase the patronage and represent a cost to SBA. The SBA also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards. The SBA is engaged with data collection and sharing efforts to determine program outcomes.
VA provides facilitators who deliver the mandatory VA Benefits Briefings I and II as part of the Transition GPS standardized curriculum required to meet VOW Act requirements. The VA facilitators also deliver the two-day track for Career Technical Training that provides instruction to Service members to discern the best choices of career technical training institutions, financial aid, best use of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, etc. Benefits counselors deliver one-on-one benefits counseling on installations, as space permits. As a primary resource for Veterans, VA ensures benefits counselors are able to accept warm handovers of transitioning Service members who do not meet CRS and require VA assistance post separation. The VA hosts the interagency single web portal for connectivity between employers and transitioning Service members, Veterans and military spouses the Veterans Employment Center (VEC). VA provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection and sharing efforts to determine program outcomes, all of which represent costs to the organization.
ED serves a unique and highly valued role in the interagency partnership by ensuring the entire curriculum, both in classroom and virtual platform delivery, is based on adult learning principles. Their consultative role, tapped daily by the interagency partners, is critical to a quality TAP. ED also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards and keeps a keen eye toward meaningful TAP outcomes, all of which represent costs to the organization.
The OPM contributes federal employment information and resources to the DOLEW, and enables the connectivity between the VEC and USA Jobs Web sites. The OPM also provides input to the TAP interagency working
The costs to DoD's interagency partners were not calculated; implementation of this rule was mandated by the Vow Act and costs for all parties are already incurred. The calculated costs to DoD and unmeasured costs to DoD's interagency partners provide significant resources to Service members resulting in benefits to the Nation.
The benefits of the redesigned TAP to the Service members are increased career readiness to obtain employment, start their own business or enter career technical training or an institution of higher learning at the point of separation from military service. The legacy, end-of-career TAP is replaced by pre-determined opportunities across the MLC for many transition-related activities to be completed during the normal course of business.
Since a direct economic estimate of the value of TAP is difficult for DoD to demonstrate as it would require collection of information from military personnel after they become private citizens, the value of the TAP can be derived by demonstrating qualitatively how Service members value the program and then displaying some changes in economic variables that can be differentiated between Veterans who have access to TAP and non-Veterans who do not have access to the program.
90% of the Soldiers felt that it was a useful resource in searching for employment and 88% of them would recommend the TAP to a colleague.
According to a curriculum assessment completed at the end of each TAP module, transitioning Service members gave the TAP positive reviews on its usefulness for their job search:
The TAP also helps mitigate the adjustment costs associated with labor market transition. Military members must prepare for the adjustments associated with losing military benefits (
The early alignment of military skills with civilian workforce demands and deliberate planning for transition throughout a Service member's career sets the stage for a well-timed flow of Service members to our Nation's labor force. Employers state that transitioning Service members have critical job-related skills, competencies, and qualities including the ability to learn new skills, strong leadership qualities, and flexibility to work well in teams or independently, ability to set and achieve goals, recognition of problems and implementation of solutions, and ability to persevere in the face of obstacles. However, application of these skills and attributes must be translated into employer friendly language. These issues are addressed by the TAP. The rule supports providing private and public sector employers with a direct link to profiles and resumes of separating Service members through the Veterans Employment Center (VEC), where employers can recruit from this talent pipeline.
The rule benefits communities across the country. Civilian communities receive more educated, better trained and more prepared citizens when separating Service members return to communities as Veterans. Service members learn to align their military skills with civilian employment opportunities, which enables the pool of highly trained, adaptable, transitioning Service members a more timely integration into the civilian workforce and local economies.
Service members also learn through TAP about the rich suite of resources available to them from the interagency partners and have, for the asking, one-on-one appointments with interagency partner staff, who can provide assistance to Service members and their families both before and after the Service member leaves active duty. More specifically, the components of the mandatory CRS target deliberate planning for financial preparedness as well as employment, education, housing and transportation plans and, for those Service members with families, child care, schools, and spouse employment. The DoD and interagency partners incorporated the warm handover requirement for any transitioning Service member who does not meet the CRS. The warm handover is meant to serve as an immediate bridge from DoD to the federal partners' staffs, which are committed to providing needed support, resources and services to Service members post separation in the communities to which the Service members are returning. The intention is to provide early intervention before Veterans encounter the challenges currently identified by some communities,
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, local communities, institutions of higher education, and others in improving education and other services nationwide in order to ensure that all Americans, including those with disabilities, receive a high-quality education and are prepared for high-quality employment. We provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education and related services at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational and other agencies, local school districts, providers of early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary students, members of the public, families, and many others. These efforts are helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, postsecondary education or employment, and that students attending postsecondary institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the quality of education.
Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs that the Department administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the 2015-2016 school year, about 55 million students will attend an estimated 130,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately 13,500 districts, and about 21 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical assistance, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups. Specifically, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the general public, including families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal governments; other Federal agencies; and neighborhood groups, community-based early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, adult education providers, professional associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor organizations.
If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process. We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations through the Internet or by regular mail. We also continue to seek greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single Government-wide access point (
We are continuing to streamline information collections, reduce the burden on information providers involved in our programs, and make information easily accessible to the public.
We are working with Congress to reauthorize the ESEA. As we do so, we continue to provide flexibility on certain provisions of current law for States that are embracing reform. The mechanisms we are using will ensure continued accountability and commitment to high-quality education for all students while providing States with increased flexibility to implement State and local reforms to improve student achievement. The ESEA, when enacted, will likely require the Department to promulgate conforming regulations.
President Obama signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA replaced the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), including the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), and amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act). WIOA promotes the integration of the workforce development system's six “core programs”, including AEFLA and the vocational rehabilitation program under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, into the revamped workforce development system under Title I of WIOA. The Department issued four NPRMs in April, 2015, one joint rule with the Department of Labor (DOL) and three ED-specific packages. We plan to issue final rules for each of the four packages in April, 2016.
In August 2015, the Department announced its intent to convene a committee to develop proposed regulations for determining which acts or omissions of an institution of higher education (“institution”) a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan) Program (“borrower defenses”) and the consequences of such borrower defenses for borrowers, institutions, and the Secretary. Specifically, the Department intends to address: (1) The procedures to be used for a borrower to establish a defense to repayment; (2) the criteria that the Department will use to identify acts or omissions of an institution that constitute defenses to repayment of Federal Direct Loans to the Secretary; (3) the standards and procedures that the Department will use to determine the liability of the institution participating in the Federal Direct Loan Program for amounts based on borrower defenses; and (4) the effect of borrower defenses on institutional capability assessments. The Department is holding public hearings for interested parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda during September 2015, and anticipates that any committee established after the public hearings will begin negotiations in January 2016.
The Higher Education Act expired at the end of 2013, and its reauthorization, when enacted, will likely require the Department to promulgate conforming regulations. In the meantime, we are continuing to work on several regulatory activities under the Title IV Federal Student Aid programs to improve protections for students and safeguard Federal dollars invested in postsecondary education.
Over the next year, we may need to issue other regulations because of new legislation or programmatic changes. In doing so, we will follow the Principles for Regulating, which determine when and how we will regulate. Through consistent application of those principles, we have eliminated unnecessary regulations and identified situations in which major programs could be implemented without regulations or with limited regulatory action.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider the following:
• Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity in education.
• Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without regulation.
• Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally binding interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
• Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be meaningful and do more good than harm.
• Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal interest, that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following principles:
• Regulate no more than necessary.
• Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple approaches to meeting statutory requirements if possible.
• Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with State and local reform activities.
• Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.
• To the extent possible, establish performance objectives rather than specify compliance behavior.
• Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.
In addition, the notice of proposed rulemaking will propose the establishment of procedures for Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loan holders to use the Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data Center (DDMC) database to identify U.S. military servicemembers who may be eligible for a lower rate on their FFEL Program loans under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
These final regulations will amend the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations governing Direct Loan cohort default rates (CDRs) to expand the circumstances under which an institution may challenge or appeal the potential consequences of a draft or final CDR based on the institution's participation rate index (PRI).
WIOA strengthened the alignment of the workforce development system's six core programs by imposing unified strategic planning requirements, common performance accountability measures, and requirements governing the one-stop delivery system. In so doing, WIOA placed heightened emphasis on coordination and collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels to ensure a streamlined and coordinated service delivery system for job seekers, including those with disabilities, and employers. To that end, ED and DOL are issuing final regulations to implement jointly-administered activities under title I of WIOA. These regulations lay the foundation, through coordination and collaboration at the Federal level, for implementing the vision and goals of WIOA.
Cheryl Keenan, Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Room 11-151, PCP, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202,
The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) makes vital contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's mission is to:
• Promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy;
• Advance energy efficiency and conservation;
• Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear weapons;
• Provide a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production; and
• Strengthen U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improve quality of life through innovations in science and technology.
The Department's regulatory activities are essential to achieving its critical mission and to implementing major initiatives of the President's National Energy Policy. Among other things, the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda contain the rulemakings the Department will be engaged in during the coming year to fulfill the Department's commitment to meeting deadlines for issuance of energy conservation standards and related test procedures. The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda also reflect the Department's continuing commitment to cut costs, reduce regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the public.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), several regulations have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in the Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to set appliance efficiency standards at levels that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The Department continues to follow its schedule for setting new appliance efficiency standards. These rulemakings are expected to save American consumers billions of dollars in energy costs.
In 2014, the Department published final rules that adopted new or amended energy conservation standards for ten different products, including furnace fans, motors, commercial refrigeration equipment, metal halide lamp fixtures, external power supplies, commercial clothes washers; general service fluorescent lamps, and automatic commercial ice makers. The ten standards finalized in 2014 are estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 400 million metric tons and save American families and businesses $78 billion in electricity bills through 2030.
Since 2009, the Energy Department has finalized new efficiency standards for more than 30 household and commercial products, including dishwashers, refrigerators and water heaters, which are estimated to save consumers several hundred billion dollars through 2030. To build on this momentum, the Department is committed to continuing to establish new efficiency standards that—when combined with the progress already made through previously finalized standards—will reduce carbon pollution by approximately 3 billion metric tons in total by 2030, equal to more than a year's carbon pollution from the entire U.S. electricity system.
As part of the President's Climate Action Plan, the Energy Department has committed to an ambitious goal of finalizing at least 20 additional energy efficiency standards by the end of 2016. The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the Report to Congress pursuant to section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released on January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2015 report to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), and the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015. The reports to Congress are posted at:
EPCA requires DOE to evaluate and consider amending its energy conservation standards for certain commercial and industrial equipment (
In addition, EPCA requires DOE to periodically review its already-established energy conservation standards for covered ASHRAE equipment and publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking with amended standards or a determination that the standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE's periodic review of ASHRAE equipment must occur [e]very six years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA also specifies that any amendments to the design requirements with respect to the ASHRAE equipment would trigger DOE review of the potential energy savings under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). EPCA also requires DOE to initiate a rulemaking to consider amending the energy conservation standards for any covered equipment for which more than 6 years has elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule establishing or amending a standard for the product as of December 18, 2012, in which case DOE must publish either: (1) A notice of determination that the current standards do not need to be amended, or (2) a notice of proposed rulemaking containing proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)).
As the federal agency with principal responsibility for protecting the health of all Americans and for providing essential human services, especially to those most vulnerable, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implements programs that strengthen the health care system; advance scientific knowledge and innovation; and improve the health, safety, and well-being of the American people.
The Department's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 reflect this complex mission through planned rulemakings structured to implement the Department's six arcs for implementation of its strategic plan: Leaving the Department Stronger; Keeping People Healthy and Safe; Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to Affordable Quality Care; Leading in Science and Innovation; Delivering High Quality Care and Spending Our Health Care Dollars More Wisely; and, Ensuring the Building Blocks for Success at Every Stage of Life. This overview highlights forthcoming rulemakings exemplifying these priorities.
The Department's work to improve the efficiency and accountability includes its innovation agenda, program integrity and key human resources initiatives. In particular, the Department plans to issue a regulation revising administrative appeal procedures for Medicare claim appeals to increase efficiency in the Medicare claims review and appeals process. Additionally, consistent with the President's Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” the Department remains committed to reducing regulatory burden on States, health care providers and suppliers, and other regulated entities by updating current rules to align them with emerging health and safety standards, and by eliminating outdated procedural provisions. A full listing of HHS's retrospective review initiatives can be found at
This HHS strategic priority encompasses the Department's work to enhance health, wellness and prevention; detect and respond to a potential disease outbreak or public health emergency; and prevent the spread of disease across borders. Since 1980, the prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents has almost tripled. Obesity has both immediate and long-term effects on the health and quality of life of those affected, increasing their risk for chronic diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, stroke, and arthritis—as well as increasing medical costs for the individual and the health system. Building on the momentum of
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to issue two final rules designed to provide more useful, easy to understand dietary information tools that will help millions of American families identify healthy choices in the marketplace. These rules, each benefiting from input received in extended public comment periods, include:
FDA will maintain HHS's ongoing effort to promulgate rules required under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), working with public and private partners to build a new system of food safety oversight. Recently, FDA finalized its preventive controls in the manufacture and distribution of human foods and of animal feeds. This additional suite of regulations, if finalized, constitutes the heart of the FSMA food safety program by instituting uniform practices for the manufacture and distribution of food products, to ensure that those products are safe for consumption and will not cause or spread disease, including, Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food and Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration.
In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, authorizing FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products, to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Over the next fiscal year, FDA's planned tobacco regulations include proposing requirements that govern the methods used in the pre-production design manufacture, packing, and storage of tobacco products, a proposed rule that would establish a process for the submission of applications for new tobacco products, and finalizing the regulation deeming other tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” to also be subject to the FD&C Act. This final regulation, known as the “deeming rule,” is necessary to afford FDA the authority to regulate additional products which include hookah, electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel tobacco products, and future tobacco products.
HHS plans to undertake a number of regulations designed to fight misuse and abuse of prescription opioids and heroin and encourage individuals to seek needed treatment for substance use disorders. These initiatives include an update to the regulation regarding confidentiality of substance abuse treatment records to align with advances in health information technology while maintaining appropriate patient privacy protections. HHS also will undertake an update of the current regulation around prescribing for buprenorphine to increase access to this Food and Drug Administration-approved, evidence-based treatment for opioid dependence and help more people get the treatment necessary for their recovery.
In 2012, Congress provided new authorities under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act to support its mission of safeguarding the quality of medical products available to the public while ensuring the availability of innovative products. FDA is implementing this new authority with a focus on protecting the quality of medical products in the global drug supply chain; improving the availability of needed drugs and devices; and promoting better-informed decisions by health professionals and patients. HHS is updating FDA's regulations to reflect the increased use of generic drugs in the current marketplace, and will describe approaches for brand name and generic drug manufacturers to update product labeling. This rule, if finalized, will revise and clarify procedures for updates to product labeling to reflect certain types of newly acquired safety information through submission of a “changes being effected” supplement.
The Affordable Care Act expands access to health insurance through improvements in Medicaid, the establishment of Affordable Insurance Exchanges, and coordination between Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Exchanges. In implementing the Affordable Care Act over the next fiscal year, HHS will pursue regulations transforming the way our nation delivers care. This includes creating better ways to pay providers, incentivize quality of care and distribute information to build a health care system that is better, smarter and healthier with an engaged, educated, and empowered consumer at the center.
A forthcoming final rule will bring to completion regulatory provisions that support our efforts to assist States in implementing Medicaid eligibility determinations, appeals, enrollment changes, and other State health subsidy programs stemming from the Affordable Care Act. The intent of the rule is to afford each State substantial discretion in the design and operation of that State's exchange, with standardization provided only where directed by the Act, or where there are compelling practical, efficiency or consumer-protection reasons.
The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires parity between mental health or substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits, with respect to financial requirements and treatment limitations under group health plans. Finalization of this rule will implement MHPAEA by proposing standards for Medicaid alternative benefit plans, Medicaid managed care organizations, and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Finalization of the rule implementing the Affordable Care Act's Section 1557 nondiscrimination provisions will ensure access to affordable, quality health care for all Americans—regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age and ability.
HHS continues to expand on early successes of more precise approaches in a few areas of medicine with the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and work on 21st Century Cures. In particular, HHS, in collaboration with the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy will finalize revisions to existing rules governing research on human subjects, often referred to as the Common Rule. This rule would apply to institutions and researchers supported by HHS as well as researchers throughout much of the federal government who are conducting research involving human subjects. The proposed revisions codified in the final rule will aim to better protect human subjects while facilitating research, and also reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators.
HHS continues work to build a health care delivery system that results in better care, smarter spending, and healthier people by finding better ways to pay providers, deliver care, and distribute information all while keeping the individual patient at the center. In the coming fiscal year, the department will complete a number of regulations to accomplish this strategic objective:
Nine Medicare payment rules will be updated to better reflect the current state of medical practice and to respond to feedback from providers seeking financial predictability and flexibility to better serve patients.
This final rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care regulations to reflect changes in the usage of managed care delivery systems. The rule aligns the rules governing Medicaid managed care with those of other major sources of coverage, including coverage through Qualified Health Plans and Medicare Advantage plans, implements statutory provision; strengthens actuarial soundness payment provisions to promote the accountability of Medicaid managed care program rates; ensures appropriate beneficiary protections and enhances expectations for program integrity. The rule also implements provisions of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) and addresses third party liability for trauma codes.
This final rule would revise the requirements that long-term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The changes are necessary to reflect advances in the theory and practice of service delivery and safety for patients in long-term care settings. The rule is also an integral part of our efforts to achieve broad-based improvements both in the quality of health care furnished through federal programs, and in patient safety, while at the same time reducing procedural burdens on providers.
Over the coming year, the Department will continue its support at critical stages of people's lives, from infancy to old age, and topics including early learning, Alzheimer's and dementia. A forthcoming rule from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will provide the first comprehensive update of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations since 1998. The CCDF is a federal program that provides formula grants to States, territories, and tribes. The program provides financial assistance to low-income families to access child care so that they can work or attend a job-training or educational program. It also provides funding to improve the quality of child care and increase the supply and availability of child care for all families, including those who receive no direct assistance through CCDF. Another ACF rule, when finalized, would modify existing Head Start performance standards to take into account increased knowledge in the early childhood field since the standards were last updated more than 15 years ago. Changes would strengthen requirements on curriculum and assessment, supervision, health and safety, and governance. The rule would also streamline existing regulations to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative requirements.
Both rules are part of the Department's retrospective review initiative and highlight HHS's commitment to protecting the public health and effective human services while pursuing smarter, more efficient regulation over the next fiscal year.
Responses to this public health problem include: Education of physicians in the appropriate management of pain and the role of opioid analgesics; implementation of effective prescription drug monitoring programs and other strategies to promote patient safety while reducing fraud and abuse; and promoting access to effective treatment for opioid use disorders. Medical and clinical evidence indicates medication-assisted treatment with pharmacotherapies approved for the treatment of substance use disorders are most effective for the treatment of opioid use disorders in particular. The medication-assisted treatment of opioid
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. DHS has a vital mission: To secure the Nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 225,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear—keeping America safe.
Our mission gives us six main areas of responsibility:
1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
3. Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws,
4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
6. Mature and Strengthen DHS
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and government agencies—at the State, local, tribal, Federal, and international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further discussion of our main areas of responsibility, see the DHS Web site at
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 2015 regulatory plan and in the agenda support the Department's responsibility areas listed above. These regulations will improve the Department's ability to accomplish its mission.
The regulations we have identified in this year's fall regulatory plan continue to address legislative initiatives including, but not limited to, the following acts: The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007); the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law 110-229 (May 8, 2008); the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 110-329 (Sep. 30, 2008).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the Department's mission. The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American public.
DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive Orders direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Finally, the Department values public involvement in the development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and takes particular concern with the impact its rules have on small businesses. DHS and each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain language in our notices and rulemaking documents to promote a better understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the Department's rulemakings.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified the following regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and analysis. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions sections) on
Pursuant to sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609 “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation” (May 1, 2012), DHS has identified the following regulatory actions that have significant international impacts. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be completed actions. You can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions sections) on
DHS participates in some international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is the primary U.S. representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and plays a major leadership role in establishing international standards in the global maritime community. IMO's work to establish international standards for maritime safety, security, and environmental protection closely aligns with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations. As an IMO member nation, the U.S. is obliged to incorporate IMO treaty provisions not already part of U.S. domestic policy into regulations for those vessels affected by the international standards. Consequently, the U.S. Coast Guard initiates rulemakings to harmonize with IMO international standards such as treaty provisions and the codes, conventions, resolutions, and circulars that supplement them.
Also, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper created the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in February 2011. The RCC is an initiative between both Federal Governments aimed at pursuing greater alignment in regulation, increasing mutual recognition of regulatory practices and establishing smarter, more effective and less burdensome regulations in specific sectors. The Canada-U.S. RCC initiative arose out of the recognition that high level, focused, and sustained effort would be required to reach a more substantive level of regulatory cooperation. Since its creation in early 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard has participated in stakeholder consultations with their Transport Canada counterparts and the public, drafted items for inclusion in the RCC Action Plan, and detailed work plans for each included Action Plan item.
The fall 2015 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from DHS components—including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which have active regulatory programs. In addition, it includes regulations from the Department's major offices and directorates such as the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). Below is a discussion of the fall 2015 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, offices, and directorates.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers immigration benefits and services while protecting and securing our homeland. USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming individuals who seek entry through the U.S. immigration system, providing clear and useful information regarding the immigration process, promoting the values of citizenship, and assisting those in need of humanitarian protection. Based on a comprehensive review of the planned USCIS regulatory agenda, USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to directly support these commitments and goals.
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, maritime service of the United States and the only military organization within DHS. It is the principal Federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and stewardship and delivers daily value to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships. The Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and important strengths in the maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard creates value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts. Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime presence, and public and private partnership foster increased maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2015 Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the Federal agency principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the United States; maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft of their intellectual property.
In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland security, CBP intends to issue several rules during the next fiscal year that are intended to improve security at our borders and ports of entry. CBP is also automating some procedures that increase efficiencies and reduce the costs and burdens to travelers. We have highlighted two of these rules below.
In addition to the regulations that CBP issues to promote DHS's mission, CBP also issues regulations related to the mission of the Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It is noted that certain regulatory authority of the U.S. Customs Service relating to customs revenue function was retained by the Department of the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury Regulatory Plan). In addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border security, CBP, during fiscal year 2016, expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. CBP regulations regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory Plan of the Department of the Treasury.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.
ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged with the civil enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. During fiscal year 2016, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on improvements in the area of student and exchange visitor programs and to advance initiatives related to F-1 nonimmigrant students:
The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance the resilience of the nation's physical and cyber infrastructure.
CFATS has been in effect since 2007, and on August 18, 2014, the Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in order to seek public comment on ways to make the program more effective. The Department will continue the rulemaking effort that commenced with the publication of that ANPRM, and intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a number of changes to the CFATS program. The NPRM will propose substantive modifications to CFATS based on public comments received on the ANPRM and based on program implementation experience the Department has gained since 2007. The NPRM will also propose modifications to CFATS in order to align its regulatory text with the requirements of the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014. Accordingly, the Department anticipates that the NPRM will propose both discretionary and non-discretionary modifications to CFATS, with the goals of harmonizing the regulation with its statutory authority and of making the CFATS program more efficient and effective.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the standard for excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-term needs of the transportation sector.
In fiscal year 2016, TSA will promote the DHS mission by emphasizing regulatory efforts that will allow TSA to better identify, detect, and protect against threats against various modes of the transportation system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the traveling public, transportation workers, and cargo.
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise DHS's fall 2015 regulatory plan follows.
In addition, in December 2014, a new law (the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014) was enacted which provides DHS continuing authority to implement CFATS. DHS must make several modifications and additions to conform the CFATS regulation with the new law.
U nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who are victims of certain qualifying criminal activity crimes and have been, are being, or are likely to be helpful to the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued assistance to trafficked and other qualifying crime victims and their families, increased investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons and other qualifying crimes, and the elimination of abuses caused by trafficking and criminal activities.
This regulation focuses specifically on the significant economic public benefit provided by foreign entrepreneurs because of the particular benefit they bring to the U.S. economy. However, the full potential of foreign entrepreneurs to benefit the U.S. economy is limited by the fact that many foreign entrepreneurs do not qualify under existing nonimmigrant and immigrant classifications. Given the technical nature of entrepreneurship, and the limited guidance to date on what constitutes a significant public benefit, DHS believes that it is necessary to establish the conditions of such an economically-based significant public benefit parole by regulation. Combined with a unique application process, the goal is to ensure that the high standard set by the statute authorizing significant public benefit parole is uniformly met across adjudications.
In this rule, DHS is proposing to establish the conditions for significant public benefit parole with respect to certain entrepreneurs and start-up founders backed by U.S. investors or grants. DHS believes that this proposal, once implemented, would encourage entrepreneurs to create and develop start-up entities in the United States with high growth potential to create jobs for U.S. workers and benefit the U.S. economy. U.S. competitiveness would increase by attracting more entrepreneurs to the United States. This proposal provides a fair, transparent, and predictable framework by which DHS will exercise its discretion to adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis, such parole requests under the existing statutory authority at INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5).
Lastly, this proposed rule provides a pathway, based on authority currently provided to the Secretary, for entrepreneurs to develop businesses in the United States, create jobs for U.S. workers, and, at the same time, establish a track record of experience and/or accomplishments. Such a track record may lead to meeting eligibility requirements for existing nonimmigrant or immigrant classifications.
Public Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), was enacted on May 8, 2008. Title VII of this statute extended the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
All other aliens seeking an immigrant visa through consular process who require a waiver of inadmissibility to
As proposed, USCIS may grant a provisional unlawful presence waiver to aliens if they are statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and for a waiver of inadmissibility based on unlawful presence. As proposed, this rule also would expand who may be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the extreme hardship determination to include lawful permanent resident spouses and parents. The changes are made in the interest of family unity and customer service. This rule also removes from the affected regulations all unnecessary procedural instructions regarding office names and locations, position titles and responsibilities, and form numbers. These instructions are often unnecessary, and unrestricted USCIS' ability to better utilize its resources and serve its customers.
The final rule is required two years after the commencement of the pilot program.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation agencies is due one year after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-the-road buses is due six months after date of enactment.
According to sec 1408 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. According to sec 1517 of the same Act, final regulations for railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after the date of enactment.
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel for Multi-Modal Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Linda L. Kent, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Molly Stubbs, ICE Regulatory Coordinator, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of the Director, PTN—Potomac Center North, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536,
Secretary Julián Castro has called the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the Department of Opportunity because of the unique impact it can make on the lives of Americans. As Secretary Castro has noted, where people live shapes how they live—the types and number of available jobs, the quality of the education their children receive, and the overall quality of life.
In brief, HUD's mission is to provide families and communities with the tools to build a brighter future. Consistent with this vision, HUD programs impact small towns, big cities, rural communities, and tribal communities across the country. HUD works to strengthen the housing market and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; and build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.
This Statement of Regulatory Priorities, together with HUD's Fall Semiannual Agenda of Regulations, highlights the most significant regulatory and deregulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during the upcoming fiscal year.
As noted in the Introduction, a central feature of HUD's mission is to use housing as a platform for improving quality of life. HUD housing serves at least two broad populations: people who are in a position to markedly increase their self-sufficiency and people who will need long-term support (for example, the frail elderly and people with severe disabilities). For those individuals who are able, increasing self-sufficiency requires access to life-skills training, wealth-creation and asset-building opportunities, job training, and career services.
Knowledge is one pillar to achieving self-sufficiency and the American Dream—a catalyst for upward mobility, as well as an investment that ensures each generation is, at least, as successful as the last. The adoption, associated programming, and use of broadband technology are powerful tools to increase access to knowledge; however, there is a “digital divide” in this nation between those with broadband Internet access and those without it.
This Statement of Regulatory Priorities highlights two rules that will focus on narrowing the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD.
On March 23, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on “Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.”
On July 15, 2015, HUD launched its Digital Opportunity Demonstration, known as “ConnectHome,” in which HUD provided a platform for collaboration among local governments, public housing agencies, Internet service providers, philanthropic foundations, nonprofit organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to work together to produce local solutions for narrowing the digital divide in communities served by HUD across the nation. The demonstration, or pilot as it is also called, commenced with the participation of 28 communities. Through contributions made by the Internet service providers and other participating organizations, these 28 communities will benefit from the ConnectHome collaboration by receiving, for the residents living in HUD public and assisted housing in these communities, broadband infrastructure, literacy training, related content, and devices that provide for accessing high-speed Internet.
The importance of all Americans having access to the Internet cannot be overstated. As HUD stated in its announcement of the Digital Opportunity Demonstration, published in the
The following two rules featured in this Regulatory Plan are part of this effort.
• Narrowing the Digital Divide through Broadband Installation in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation
• Narrowing the Digital Divide through Community Planning: Integrating Broadband Access Planning into HUD's Consolidated Planning Process
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be made pursued in FY 2016. HUD expects that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
The proposed rule is part of several mutually supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the digital divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the populations impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of implementing these Administration efforts. The digital divide in broadband access, connectivity, and use disproportionately affects certain Americans: Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; individuals who did not finish high school; and African Americans and Hispanics. Eighty-four percent of households with HUD assistance make less than $20,000 per year, and 63 percent are African American or Hispanic (46 percent and 17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-assisted household, 38 percent have children who are 18 years or younger. The proposed rule will build on the success of ConnectHome by ensuring that when construction or significant rehabilitation is done using HUD funds, the infrastructure needed for broadband access is included in the work.
Further, HUD is seeking to minimize the costs of installation by pairing the installation requirements with new construction or rehabilitation work when costs are lower than installation broadband infrastructure when no other work is being done. Additionally, HUD is proposing to define “substantial rehabilitation” as significant work (50 percent or more of full system replacement) on one or more of the following systems: Electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. This further minimizes the costs of the rule by ensuring that only significant work that would lower the burden of installing broadband infrastructure triggers the proposed requirements.
HUD also recognizes that there may be some communities or buildings where installing broadband infrastructure is infeasible or impractical due to a variety of circumstances (
This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations to require that jurisdictions, in their planning efforts, consider the needs of broadband access for low-income residents in the communities they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the rule would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated plan evaluate whether residents of HUD-funded housing have access to high-speed Internet and, if so, in what ways is such access made available to these residents. If low-income residents in the communities do not have access to high-speed Internet, States and jurisdictions must consider whether such access can be made available to their communities as part of their investment of HUD funds. The proposed regulatory amendments build upon other HUD efforts to close the digital divide and help ensure that the benefits of high-speed Internet reach every American household, regardless of their economic backgrounds.
Further, HUD is seeking to minimize the costs of installation by pairing the installation requirements with new construction or rehabilitation work when costs are lower than installation broadband infrastructure when no other work is being done. Additionally, HUD is proposing to define substantial rehabilitation as significant work (50 percent or more of full system replacement) on one or more of the following systems: electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. This further minimizes the costs of the rule by ensuring that only significant work that would lower the burden of installing broadband infrastructure triggers the proposed requirements.
HUD also recognizes that there may be some communities or buildings where installing broadband infrastructure is infeasible or impractical due to a variety of circumstances (
This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations to require that jurisdictions, in their planning efforts, consider the needs of broadband access for low-income residents in the communities they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the rule would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated plan evaluate whether residents of HUD-funded housing have access to high-speed Internet and, if so, in what ways is such access made available to these residents. If low-income residents in the communities do not have access to high-speed Internet, States and jurisdictions must consider whether such access can be made available to their communities, as part of their investment of HUD funds. The proposed regulatory amendments build upon other HUD efforts to close the digital divide and help ensure that the benefits of high-speed Internet reach every American household, regardless of their economic backgrounds.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal Federal steward of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of our cultural treasures. DOI serves as trustee to Native Americans and Alaska native trust assets and is responsible for relations with the island territories under United States jurisdiction. The Department manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands, including 408 park units and 563 wildlife refuges, and more than one billion submerged offshore acres. These areas include natural resources that are essential for America's industry—oil and gas, coal, and minerals such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, Interior provides access for renewable and conventional energy development and manages the protection and restoration of surface-mined lands.
The Department protects and recovers endangered species; protects natural, historic, and cultural resources; manages water projects that are a lifeline and economic engine for many communities in the West; manages forests and fights wildfires; manages Federal energy resources; regulates surface coal mining operations; reclaims abandoned coal mines; educates children in Indian schools; and provides recreational opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually in the Nation's national parks, public lands, national wildlife refuges, and recreation areas.
DOI will continue to review and update its regulations and policies to ensure that they are effective and efficient, and that they promote accountability and sustainability. DOI will emphasize regulations and policies that:
• Promote environmentally responsible, safe, and balanced development of renewable and conventional energy on our public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS);
• Use the best available science to ensure that public resources are protected, conserved, and used wisely;
• Preserve America's natural treasures for future generations;
• Improve the nation-to-nation relationship with American Indian tribes and promote tribal self-determination and self-governance;
• Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, other groups, and individuals to achieve common goals; and
• Promote transparency, fairness, accountability, and the highest ethical standards while maintaining performance goals.
The Department's bureaus implement congressionally mandated programs through their regulations. Some of these regulatory programs include:
• Overseeing the development of onshore and offshore energy, including renewable, mineral, oil and gas, and other energy resources;
• Regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations on public and private lands;
• Managing migratory birds and preserving marine mammals and endangered species;
• Managing dedicated lands, such as national parks, wildlife refuges, National Landscape Conservation System lands, and American Indian trust lands;
• Managing public lands open to multiple use;
• Managing revenues from American Indian and Federal minerals;
• Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
• Managing natural resource damage assessments.
DOI's regulatory programs seek to operate programs transparently, efficiently, and cooperatively while maximizing protection of our land, resources, and environment in a fiscally responsible way by:
The Department's mission includes protecting and providing access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust responsibilities to tribes. We are committed to this mission and to applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively. Our priorities include protecting public health and safety, restoring and maintaining public lands, protecting threatened and endangered species, ameliorating land- and resource-management problems on public lands, and ensuring accountability and compliance with Federal laws and regulations.
Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department has focused on renewable energy issues and has established priorities for environmentally responsible development of renewable energy on public lands and the OCS. Industry has responded by investing in the development of wind farms off the Atlantic seacoast and solar, wind, and geothermal energy facilities throughout the West. Power generation from these new energy sources produces virtually no greenhouse gases and, when done in an environmentally responsible manner, harnesses with minimum impact abundant renewable energy. The Department will continue its intra- and inter-departmental efforts to move forward with the environmentally responsible review and permitting of renewable energy projects on public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, and will identify how its regulatory processes can be improved to facilitate the responsible development of these resources.
In implementing these priorities through its regulations, the Department will create jobs and contribute to a healthy economy while protecting our signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and cultural resources.
The Department strongly encourages public participation in the regulatory process and will continue to actively engage the public in the implementation of priority initiatives. Throughout the Department, individual bureaus and offices are ensuring that the American people have an active role in managing our Nation's public lands and resources.
For example, every year FWS establishes migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership with flyway councils composed of State fish and wildlife agencies. FWS also holds a series of public meetings to give other interested parties, including hunters and other groups, opportunities to participate in establishing the upcoming season's regulations. Similarly, BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils to advise on management of public lands and resources. These citizen-based groups allow individuals from all backgrounds and interests to have a voice in management of public lands.
President Obama's Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to make the regulatory system work better for the American public. Regulations should “. . . protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” DOI's plan for retrospective regulatory review identifies specific efforts to relieve regulatory burdens, add jobs to the economy, and make regulations work better for the American public while protecting our environment and resources.
The Department routinely meets with stakeholders to solicit feedback and gather input on how modernize our regulatory programs, through efforts such as incorporating performance based standards where appropriate and removing outdated and unnecessary requirements. DOI bureaus are continuing to work to make our regulations easier to comply with and understand. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share ideas on how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the requirements of the laws they enforce and improving their stewardship of the environment and resources. Results include:
• Effective stewardship of our Nation's resources in a way that is responsive to the needs of small businesses;
• Increased benefits per dollar spent by careful evaluation of the economic effects of planned rules; and
• Improved compliance and transparency by use of plain language in our regulations and guidance documents.
The Department's Final Plan for Retrospective Review and biannual status reports can be viewed at
The following sections give an overview of some of the major regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides services to approximately 1.9 million Indians and Alaska Natives, and maintains a government-to-government relationship with the 567 federally recognized Indian tribes. The Bureau also administers and manages 55 million acres of surface land and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals held in trust by the United States for Indians and Indian tribes. BIA's mission is to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives, as well as to provide quality education opportunities to students in Indian schools.
In the coming year, BIA will continue its focus on improved management of trust responsibilities with each regulatory review and revision. The Bureau will also continue to promote economic development in Indian communities by ensuring the regulations support, rather than hinder, productive land management. In addition, BIA will focus on updating Indian education regulations and on other regulatory changes to increase transparency in support of the President's Open Government Initiative.
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
• Finalize regulations to meet the Indian trust reform goals for rights-of-ways across Indian land.
• Develop regulatory changes necessary for improved Indian education.
BIA is reviewing regulations that require the Bureau of Indian Education to follow 23 different State adequate yearly progress standards; the review will determine whether a uniform standard would better meet the needs of students at Bureau-funded schools. With regard to undergraduate education, the Bureau of Indian Education plans to finalize regulations that address grants to tribally controlled community colleges and other Indian education regulations. These reviews identify
• Revise regulations to reflect updated statutory provisions and increase transparency.
BIA is making a concentrated effort to improve the readability and precision of its regulations. Because trust beneficiaries often turn to the regulations for guidance on how a given BIA process works, BIA is ensuring that each revised regulation is written as clearly as possible and accurately reflects the current organization of the Bureau. The Bureau is also simplifying language and eliminating obsolete provisions. In the coming year, the Bureau also plans to finalize revisions to regulations regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169); Secretarial elections (25 CFR 81); the Housing Improvement Program (25 CFR 256); Indian Reservation Roads (25 CFR 170); and Indian Child Welfare Act proceedings (25 CFR 23).
BLM manages the 245-million-acre National System of Public Lands, located primarily in the western States, including Alaska, and the 700-million-acre subsurface mineral estate located throughout the Nation. In doing so, BLM manages such varied uses as energy and mineral development, outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, and forestry and woodlands products. BLM's complex multiple-use mission affects the lives of millions of Americans, including those who live near and visit the public lands, as well as those who benefit from the commodities, such as minerals, energy, or timber, produced from the lands' rich resources. In undertaking its management responsibilities, BLM seeks to conserve our public lands' natural and cultural resources and sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
In the coming year, BLM's highest regulatory priorities include:
• Provide for site security by preventing theft and loss and to enable accurate measurement and production accountability.
• Ensure that crude oil produced from Federal and Indian oil and gas leases is accurately measured and accounted for.
• Ensure that gas produced from Federal and Indian oil and gas leases is accurately measured and accounted.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is updating and improving the current versions of Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Order) for Site Security (Order 3), Oil Measurement (Order 4), and Gas Measurement (Order 5). These Orders were last updated in 1989. The primary purpose for these updates is to keep pace with changing industry practices, emerging and new technologies, respond to recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) Office of the Inspector General, and the Department's Subcommittee on Royalty Management. The proposed changes address findings and recommendations that in part formed the basis for the GAO's inclusion of the Department's oil and gas program on the GAO's High Risk List in 2011 (GAO-11-278) and for its continuing to keep the program on the list in the 2013 and 2015 updates. The Orders will be published as proposed rules in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3173, 3174 and 3175 respectively.
• Preventing waste of produced natural gas and ensuring fair return to the taxpayer.
BLM's current requirements regarding venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas operations are over three decades old. The agency is currently preparing a proposed rule to address emissions reductions and minimize waste through improved standards for venting, flaring, and fugitive losses of methane from oil and gas production facilities on Federal and Indian lands.
• Ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return from energy resources developed on the public lands, those resources are diligently and responsibly developed, and that adequate financial measures exist to address the risks.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended to the BLM that steps be taken to revise its regulations with respect to onshore royalty rates to provide flexibility to change those rates. On April 21, 2015, the BLM issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on potential updates to BLM rules governing oil and gas royalty rates, rental payments, lease sale minimum bids, civil penalty caps and financial assurances. Over 82,000 comments were received by the end of the comment period on June 19, 2015. Most of the comments focused on fiscal lease terms—royalty rates, rentals, and minimum bids. There were a few comments on bonding and very few on civil penalties. The analysis of these comments is on-going and is expected to be complete by the end of calendar year 2015. Following completion of the analysis of these comments the BLM will consider possible revisions to its regulations as contemplated by GAO recommendations.
• Creating a competitive process for offering lands for solar and wind energy development.
BLM will finalize a rule that would establish an efficient competitive process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy development. The regulations will establish competitive bidding procedures for lands within designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas, define qualifications for potential bidders, and structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process. The rule will enhance BLM's ability to capture fair market value for the use of public lands, ensure fair access to leasing opportunities for renewable energy development, and foster the growth and development of the renewable energy sector of the economy.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes energy independence, environmental protection, and economic development through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy resources. It is dedicated to offering opportunities to develop the conventional and renewable energy and the underlying mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an efficient and effective manner, balancing the need for economic growth with the protection of the environment. BOEM oversees the expansion of domestic energy production, enhancing the potential for domestic energy independence and the generation of revenue to support the economic development of the country. BOEM thoughtfully considers and balances the potential environmental impacts associated with exploring and extracting OCS resources with the critical need for domestic energy production. BOEM's near-term regulatory agenda will focus on a number of issues, including:
• Enhancing the regulatory efficiency of the offshore renewables program.
One rulemaking in particular has been proposed to address recommendations submitted to BOEM by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, and other stakeholders in the renewable energy development process. Specifically, this rulemaking will clarify the role of Certified Verification Agents as part of the process of designing, fabricating, and installing offshore wind energy facilities for the OCS. Additionally, BOEM is working to
• Updating BOEM's Air Quality Program.
BOEM's original air quality rules date largely from 1980 and have not been updated substantially since that time. From 1990 to 2011, DOI exercised jurisdiction for air quality only for OCS sources operating in the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2011, Congress expanded DOI's authority by transferring to it responsibility for monitoring OCS air quality off the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska, including the Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea. BOEM will propose regulations to reflect changes that have occurred over the past thirty-four years and the new regulatory jurisdiction. In its development of proposed regulations, BOEM coordinated with other bureaus and agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Promoting Effective Financial Assurance and Risk Management.
BOEM has the responsibility to ensure that lessees and operators on the OCS do not engage in activities that could generate an undue risk of financial loss to the government. BOEM formally established a program office to review these issues, and is working with industry and others to determine how to improve the regulatory regime to better align with the realities of aging offshore infrastructure, hazard risks, and increasing costs of decommissioning. In order to minimize the potential adverse impact of any proposed regulations, and in an effort to take all issues and views into proper account, BOEM published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and has engaged with industry on the subject. BOEM has since issued a Notice to Lessees, will review comments, finalize guidance, and determine whether to update its regulation in this area.
BSEE's mission is to regulate safety, emergency preparedness, environmental responsibility and appropriate development and conservation of offshore oil and natural gas resources. BSEE's priorities in fulfillment of its mission are to: (1) Regulate, enforce, and respond to OCS development using the full range of authorities, policies, and tools to compel safety and environmental responsibility and appropriate development of offshore oil and natural gas resources; and (2) Build and sustain the organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity within and across BSEE's key functions—capacity that keeps pace with OCS industry technology improvements, innovates in regulation and enforcement, and reduces risk through systemic assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
BSEE has identified the following four areas of regulatory priorities:
• Improving Crane and Helicopter Safety on Offshore Facilities.
BSEE will finalize a rule regarding crane safety on fixed offshore platforms and will propose a rule for helicopter/helideck safety.
• Improving Oil Spill Response Plans and Procedures.
BSEE will update regulations for offshore oil spill response plans by incorporating requirements for improved procedures. The procedures that will be required are based on lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon spill, as well as nearly two decades of agency oversight and applicable BSEE research.
• Tailoring Drilling Requirements to the Unique Conditions of the Arctic.
BSEE and BOEM will finalize a joint rule that promotes safe, responsible, and effective exploratory drilling activities on the Arctic OCS by taking into account the unique aspects and risks of operating in the Arctic, in order to ensure protection of the Arctic's communities and marine environment.
• Managing and Mitigating Well Control and Blowout Preventer Risks.
BSEE will finalize a rule concerning requirements on blowout preventers and critical reforms in the areas of well design, well control, casing, cementing, real-time monitoring, and subsea containment. This rule will address multiple recommendations resulting from various investigations from the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Additionally, BSEE will finalize revisions of its regulations on production safety systems and life cycle analysis. This final rule will expand the use of life cycle management of critical equipment and will address issues such as subsurface safety devices, safety device testing, and requirements for operating production systems on the OCS.
ONRR will continue to collect, account for, and disburse revenues from Federal offshore energy and mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands. The program operates nationwide and is primarily responsible for timely and accurate collection, distribution, and accounting for revenues associated with mineral and energy production. ONRR's regulatory plan is as follows:
• Implement regulations to ensure compliance.
ONRR is promulgating final rules to ensure compliance with the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996, which will also clarify regulatory processes and direction for lessors on Federal leases.
• Simplify valuation regulations.
ONRR plans to finalize regulations at title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1206 for establishing the value for royalty purposes of (1) oil and natural gas produced from Federal leases; and (2) coal produced from Federal and Indian leases. Additionally, the rule consolidates sections of the regulations common to all minerals, such as definitions and instructions regarding how a payor should request a valuation determination. Clarify and simplify issuing notices of non-compliance and civil penalties.
This rule will amend ONRR civil penalty regulations to: (1) Codify application of those regulations to solid minerals and geothermal leases as the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 authorizes; (2) adjust Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act civil penalty amounts for inflation as the Federal Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act requires; (3) clarify and simplify the existing regulations for issuing notices of noncompliance and civil penalties under 30 CFR part 1241; and (4) provide notice that ONRR will post its matrices for civil penalty assessments on the ONRR Web site.
• Define methodologies for distribution and disbursement of qualified revenues from certain leases under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA).
ONRR is amending the regulations on the distribution and disbursement of qualified revenues from certain leases on the Gulf of Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf, per the statutory direction contained in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. This regulation sets forth the formulas and methodologies for calculating and allocating revenues during the second phase of revenue sharing to: The States
• Simplify the valuation of coal advance royalty.
The new regulations will implement the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) governing the payment of advance royalty on coal resources produced from Federal leases. The EPAct provisions amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA). ONRR is also adding information collection requirements that are applicable to all solid minerals leases and also are necessary to implement the EPAct Federal coal advance royalty provisions.
• Consolidate billing and collection systems at the Department level.
This Direct Final Rule (DFR) amends those sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to how to submit rental and bonus payments for onshore lease sales. The goals are to increase flexibility in how the Department collects these payments and to provide consistency between onshore and offshore lease sale payments and collections. The DFR changes references to paying rents and bonuses from the BLM State Office to paying rents and bonuses as stipulated in the terms of a BLM Lease Sale Notice. BLM will notify potential bidders of their payment options in the Lease Sale Notice during the pre-sale notification process, which occurs 90 days prior to the lease sale date. This additional flexibility will allow for a transition period for successful implementation and coordination between BLM and ONRR.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSM has two principal functions—the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations and the reclamation and restoration of abandoned coal mine lands. In enacting SMCRA, Congress directed OSM to “strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy.” In response to its statutory mandate, OSM has sought to develop and maintain a stable regulatory program that is safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound. A stable regulatory program ensures that the coal mining industry has clear guidelines for operation and reclamation, and that citizens know how the program is being implemented.
OSM's Federal regulatory program sets minimum requirements for obtaining a permit for surface and underground coal mining operations, sets performance standards for those operations, requires reclamation of lands and waters disturbed by mining, and requires enforcement to ensure that the standards are met. OSM is the primary regulatory authority for SMCRA enforcement until a State or Indian tribe develops its own regulatory program, which is no less effective than the Federal program. When a State or Indian tribe achieves “primacy,” it assumes direct responsibility for permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities under its federally approved regulatory program. The regulatory standards in Federal program states and in primacy states are essentially the same with only minor, non-substantive differences. Today, 24 States have primacy, including 23 of the 24 coal producing States. OSM's regulatory priorities for the coming year will focus on:
• Stream Protection.
Protect streams and related environmental resources from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations. OSM plans to finalize regulations to improve the balance between environmental protection and the Nation's need for coal by better protecting streams from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations.
• Coal Combustion Residues.
Establish Federal standards for the beneficial use of coal combustion residues on active and abandoned coal mines.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. FWS also provides opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our shared natural heritage.
FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of programs that:
• Protect and recover endangered and threatened species;
• Monitor and manage migratory birds;
• Restore native aquatic populations and nationally significant fisheries;
• Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international trade;
• Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
• Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through international conservation efforts;
• Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and tribes for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
• Manage the more than 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their habitats and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational activities.
During the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will include:
• Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We will issue multiple rules to add species to, remove species from, and reclassify species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and to designate critical habitat for certain listed species. We will issue a rule to improve the process for listing species by revising the process for submitting petitions to list, delist, or reclassify species. We will further the protection of native species and their ecosystems through a policy that will provide incentives for voluntary conservation actions taken for species prior to their listing under the ESA. In accordance with Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), we will issue rules to improve the process of critical habitat designation, including clarifying definitions of “critical habitat” and “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat, and a policy to explain how we consider various factors in determining exclusions to critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA.
• Regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
In carrying out our responsibility to manage migratory bird populations, we issue annual migratory bird hunting regulations, which establish the frameworks (outside limits) for States to establish season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. In compliance with E.O. 13563, beginning with the 2016-17 hunting season, we are using a new schedule for promulgating these regulations that is more efficient and will provide potential season dates for the States to consider much earlier than was possible under the old process. For example, we anticipate proposing season frameworks in December 2015, instead of during the summer of 2016, which will make planning easier for the States and all
We will also issue a programmatic environmental impact statement to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to authorize incidental take of migratory birds under the MBTA. We are considering rulemaking to address various approaches to regulating incidental take of migratory birds. The rulemaking would establish appropriate standards for any such regulatory approach to ensure that incidental take of migratory birds is appropriately mitigated, which may include requiring measures to avoid or minimize take or securing compensation.
• Regulations to administer the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
In carrying out our statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, we issue an annual rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific refuges. To ensure protection of NWRS resources, we will issue a proposed rule to ensure that businesses conducting oil or gas operations on NWRS lands do so in a manner that prevents or minimizes damage to the lands, visitor values, and management objectives.
• Regulations to carry out the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Act.
To strengthen our partnership with State conservation organizations, we are working on several rules to update and clarify our WSFR regulations. States rely on FWS to distribute finances from trust fund and excise tax revenues, and the FWS relies on the States to implement eligible conservation projects. Planned regulatory revisions will help to reflect several new decisions that State and Federal partners have agreed upon, and to clarify language in clear and precise terms. We will expand on existing regulations that prescribe processes that applicants and grantees must follow when applying for and managing grants from FWS. We will also revise our regulations under the Clean Vessel Act program to improve management and execution of that program.
• Regulations to carry out the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Lacey Act.
In accordance with section 3(a) of Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), we will update our CITES regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th Conference of the Parties to CITES. The revisions will help us more effectively promote species conservation and help U.S. importers and exporters of wildlife products understand how to conduct lawful international trade. We will also rewrite a substantial portion of our regulations for the importation, exportation, and transportation of wildlife by proposing changes to the port structure and inspection fees and making the regulations easier to understand.
To help protect African elephants, we will finalize regulations regarding ivory from African elephants to prohibit interstate commerce and export, except for antique specimens and certain other items. Import of sport-hunted trophies would still be allowed, but the number of trophies that could be imported by a hunter in a given year would be limited.
Finally, to protect native species and prevent the spread of injurious species, we will propose regulations to improve our process for making injurious wildlife determinations for foreign species under the Lacey Act to prevent the importation and interstate transportation and commerce of injurious wildlife.
The National Park Service (NPS) preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values within more than 400 units of the National Park System encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the United States and the world.
To achieve this mission NPS adheres to the following guiding principles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The NPS regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
• Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use.
Rules for Fire Island National Seashore, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and Big Cypress National Preserve would allow for management of off-road vehicle (ORV) use, to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources, and provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts among user groups. Further, the rules would designate ORV routes and establish operational requirements and restrictions.
• Managing Bicycling.
A new rule would authorize and allow for management of bicycling at Rocky Mountain National Park.
• Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
(1) A new rule would establish a process for disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains and Funerary Objects discovered after November 16, 1990, on Federal or Indian Lands.
(2) A rule revising the existing regulations would describe the NAGPRA process in plain language, eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms, and include Native Hawaiians in the process. The rule would eliminate unnecessary requirements for museums and would not add processes or collect additional information.
• Regulating non-Federal oil and gas activity on NPS land.
NPS will revise its existing regulations to account for new technology and industry practices, eliminate regulatory exemptions, update new legal requirements, remove caps on bond amounts, and allow the NPS to recover compliance costs associated with administering the regulations.
• Managing service animals.
The rule will define and differentiate service animals from pets, and will describe the circumstances under which service animals would be allowed in a park area. The rule will ensure NPS compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (28 U.S.C. 794) and better align NPS regulations with the Americans with Disabilities
• Preserving and managing paleontological resources.
This rule would implement provisions of the Paleontological Resources Protection Act. The rule would preserve, manage, and protect paleontological resources on Federal lands and ensure that these resources are available for current and future generations to enjoy as part of America's national heritage. The rule would address management, collection, and curation of paleontological resources from Federal lands using scientific principles and expertise. Provisions of the rule will ensure that resources are collected in accordance with permits and curated in an approved repository. The rule would also protect confidential locality data, and authorize penalties for illegally collecting, damaging, altering, defacing, or selling paleontological resources.
• Collecting plants for traditional cultural practices.
The rule will authorize Park Superintendents to enter into agreements with federally recognized tribes to permit tribal members to collect limited quantities of plant resources in parks to be used for traditional cultural practices and activities.
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To accomplish this mission, we employ management, engineering, and science to achieve effective and environmentally sensitive solutions.
Reclamation projects provide: Irrigation water service, municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and control, system optimization, and related uses. We have continued to focus on increased security at our facilities.
Our regulatory program focus in fiscal year 2016 is to publish a proposed minor amendment to 43 CFR part 429 to bring it into compliance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 5, Commercial Filming and Similar Projects and Still Photography on Certain Areas under Department Jurisdiction. Publishing this rule will implement the provisions of Public Law 106-206, which directs the establishment of permits and reasonable fees for commercial filming and certain still photography activities on public lands.
The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to ensure public safety against foreign and domestic threats, to provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. In carrying out its mission, the Department is guided by four core values: (1) Equal justice under the law; (2) honesty and integrity; (3) commitment to excellence; and (4) respect for the worth and dignity of each human being. The Department of Justice is primarily a law enforcement agency, not a regulatory agency; it carries out its principal investigative, prosecutorial, and other enforcement activities through means other than the regulatory process.
The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in the areas of civil rights, criminal law enforcement and immigration. These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, several other components of the Department carry out important responsibilities through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are not separately discussed in this overview of the regulatory priorities, those components have key roles in implementing the Department's anti-terrorism and law enforcement priorities.
The Department is including four disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives in its Regulatory Plan: (1) Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the ADA regulations (titles II and III); (2) Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the Department's section 504 regulations; (3) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations: Movie Captioning and Audio Description; and (4) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Governments.
The Department will also be revising its regulations for Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, as well as revising regulations implementing section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Department's other disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives, while important priorities for the Department's rulemaking agenda, will be included in the Department's long-term actions for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. As will be discussed more fully below, these initiatives include: (1) Accessibility of Medical Equipment and Furniture; (2) Accessibility of Beds in Guestrooms with Mobility Features in Places of Lodging; (3) Next Generation 9-1-1 Services; (4) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations; and (5) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture.
Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area of closed captioning and audio description for first-run movies. In June 2008, the Department issued an NPRM to revise the ADA title III regulation, 73 FR 34466, in which the Department stated that it was considering options for requiring that movie theater owners or operators exhibit movies that are captioned or that provide video (narrative) description. The Department issued an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, to obtain more information regarding issues raised by commenters; to seek comment on technical questions that arose from the Department's research; and to learn more about the status of digital conversion. In addition, the Department sought information regarding whether other technologies or areas of interest (
The ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of American civic and economic life will be achieved in today's technologically advanced society only if it is clear to State and local governments that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department is planning to amend its regulation implementing title II of the ADA to require public entities that provide services, programs or activities to the public through Internet Web sites to make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
The Department, in its 2010 ANPRM on Web site accessibility, indicated that it was considering amending its regulations implementing titles II and III of the ADA to require Web site accessibility and it sought public comment regarding what standards, if any, it should adopt for Web site accessibility, whether the Department should adopt coverage limitations for certain entities, and what resources and services are available to make existing Web sites accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department also solicited comments on the costs of making Web sites accessible and on the existence of any other effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to making Web sites accessible. The Department received approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of reviewing these comments. The Department will be publishing separate NPRMs addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA. The Department expects to publish the title II NPRM early in fiscal year 2016.
The remaining disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives from the 2010 ANPRMs are
The Department's 2010 ANPRM on Web site accessibility, as previously pointed out, sought public comment regarding what standards, if any, it should adopt for Web site accessibility, whether the Department should adopt coverage limitations for certain entities, including small businesses, and what resources and services are available to make existing Web sites accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department also solicited comments on the costs of making Web sites accessible and on the existence of any other effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to making Web sites accessible. The Department is reviewing the public comments received in response to the ANPRM and, as noted above, plans to publish the title II NPRM on Web site accessibility early in fiscal year 2016. The Department believes that the title II Web site accessibility rule will facilitate the creation of an important infrastructure for Web accessibility that will be very important in the Department's preparation of the title III Web site accessibility NPRM. Consequently, the Department has decided to extend the time period for development of the proposed title III Web site accessibility rule and include it among its long-term rulemaking priorities. The Department expects to publish the title III Web site accessibility NPRM during fiscal year 2018.
ATF issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and regulations are designed to, among other objectives, curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and to assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing crime and violence. The Department is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend ATF's regulations regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, this rule would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer.
ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2016, to seek modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and explosives. ATF plans to issue regulations to finalize the current interim rules implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act, title XI, subtitle C, of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (enacted Nov. 25, 2002). ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that will lead to promulgation of a revised set of regulations (27 CFR part 771) governing the procedure and practice for proposed denial of applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed revocation of such licenses and permits.
DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, and collectively referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to enforce the CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil justice system those organizations and individuals involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States. DEA promulgates the CSA implementing regulations in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA continuously evaluates new and emerging substances to determine whether such substances should be controlled under the CSA. During fiscal year 2016, in addition to initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent imminent hazard to the public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to control or reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and initiatives, the DEA will initiate the notice of proposed rulemaking titled, “Transporting Controlled Substances Away from Principal Places of Business or Principal Places of Professional Practice on an As Needed and Random Basis.” In this rule, the DEA proposes to amend its regulations governing the registration, security, reporting, recordkeeping, and ordering requirements in circumstances where practitioners transport controlled substances for dispensing to patients on an as needed and random basis. Lastly, the DEA will finalize its Interim Final Rule for Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances. By this final rule, the DEA would finalize its regulations to clarify: (1) The criteria by which DEA-registered practitioners may electronically issue controlled substance prescriptions; and (2) the criteria by which DEA-registered pharmacies may receive and archive these electronic prescriptions.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to its mission: To protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next 12 months, in addition to other regulatory objectives aimed at accomplishing its mission, the Bureau will continue its ongoing efforts to: Streamline regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and improving readability; improve disciplinary procedures through a revision of the subpart relating to the disciplinary process; reduce the introduction of contraband through various means, such as clarifying drug and alcohol surveillance testing programs; protect the public from continuing criminal activity committed within prison; and enhance the Bureau's ability to more closely monitor the communications of high-risk inmates.
On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), the responsibility for immigration enforcement and border security and for providing immigration-related services and benefits, such as naturalization, immigrant petitions, and work authorization, was transferred from the Justice Department's former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) in EOIR remain part of the Department of Justice. The immigration judges adjudicate approximately 300,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens should be ordered removed from the United States or should be granted some form of relief from removal. The Board has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of immigration judges, as well as other matters. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a continued role in the conducting of immigration proceedings, including removal proceedings and custody determinations regarding the detention of aliens pending completion of removal proceedings. The Attorney General also is responsible for civil litigation and criminal prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
In several pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to revise and update the regulations relating to immigration proceedings in order to further EOIR's primary mission to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation's immigration laws. These pending regulations include but are not limited to: A proposed regulation to establish procedures for the filing and adjudication of motions to reopen removal, deportation, and exclusion proceedings based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; a final regulation to improve the recognition and accreditation process for organizations and representatives that appear in immigration proceedings before EOIR; and a proposed regulation to implement procedures that address the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings pursuant to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. In addition, EOIR recently published a final regulation to allow for separate representation in custody and bond proceedings and a final regulation to enhance the eligibility requirements for providers to appear on the List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers. Finally, in response to Executive Order 13653, the Department is retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations to eliminate regulations that unnecessarily duplicate DHS's regulations and update outdated references to the pre-2002 immigration system.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in
The Department is not currently engaged in international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
Executive Order 13659, “Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses,” provided new directives for agencies to improve the
At the Department of Justice, stakeholders must obtain pre-import and pre-export authorizations from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (relating to controlled substances and listed chemicals), or from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (relating to firearms, ammunition, and explosives). The ITDS “single window” will work in conjunction with these pre-import and pre-export authorizations. Because the ITDS excludes applications for permits, licenses, or certifications, the ITDS single window will not be used by DEA registrants, regulated persons, or brokers or traders applying for permits or filing import/export declarations, notifications or reports. The DEA import/export application and filing processes will continue to remain separate from (and in advance of) the ITDS single window. Entities will continue to use the DEA application and filing processes; however, the processes will be electronic rather than paper. After DEA's approval or notification of receipt as appropriate, the DEA will transmit the necessary information electronically to the ITDS and the registrant or regulated person.
Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13659, DEA and ATF have consulted with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and are continuing to study what modifications and technical changes to their existing regulations and operational systems are needed to achieve the goals of E.O. 13659.
Web sites that do not accommodate assistive technology, for example, can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities, just as buildings not designed to accommodate people with disabilities prevent some individuals from entering and accessing services. Web designers may not realize how simple features built into a Web site will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer monitor or use a mouse. In addition, in many cases, these Web sites do not provide captioning for videos or live events streamed over the web, leaving persons who are deaf or hard of hearing unable to access the information that is being provided. Although an increasing number of State and local Governments are making efforts to provide accessible Web sites, because there are no specific ADA standards for Web site accessibility, these Web sites vary in actual usability.
The proposed rule seeks to address the critical and ongoing shortage of qualified legal representation for underserved populations in immigration cases before federal administrative agencies by revising the eligibility requirements and procedures for recognizing organizations and accrediting their representatives to provide immigration legal services to underserved populations. The proposed rule also imposes greater oversight over recognized organizations and their representatives in order to protect against potential abuse of vulnerable immigrant populations by unscrupulous organizations and individuals.
The Department's Fall 2015 Regulatory Agenda is driven by Secretary Perez's commitment to building a stronger America through shared prosperity. This means more opportunity for workers to acquire the skills they need to succeed, to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, for workers and employers to compete on a level playing field, for veterans to thrive in the civilian economy, for people with disabilities to be productive members of the labor force, for workers to retire with dignity, and for people to work in a safe environment with the full protection of our anti-discrimination laws.
In recent years, the Department of Labor has taken bold steps to use our regulatory authorities to address many of the most critical challenges facing workers and their families.
We took action to give home care workers a raise by guaranteeing them minimum wage and overtime for the hard work that they do. We required mine operators to limit miners' exposure to coal dust, which will dramatically reduce black lung disease and save lives.
We updated our regulations to require federal contractors and subcontractors to treat applicants and employees without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Along with the Department of Education, we have proposed new regulations that will transform our nation's workforce system, giving workers the chance to develop the skills that will prepare them to succeed in 21st century jobs and careers. We proposed extending overtime protections to roughly 5 million workers.
We proposed important new conflict of interest protections for 401(k) and IRA investors that would require retirement advisors to put their clients' best interests before their own profits.
Working with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council we proposed regulations that will implement the President's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, holding federal contractors accountable when they put workers' safety, hard-earned wages and basic workplace rights at risk.
We finalized a rule to help close the persistent pay gap that exists between men and women by providing employees working on federal contracts with real pay transparency and openness enabling them to freely talk about their compensation.
The 2015 Regulatory Plan highlights the Labor Department's most noteworthy and significant rulemaking efforts, with each addressing these top priorities of its regulatory agencies: Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), Veterans' Employment Service (VETS), and Wage and Hour Division (WHD). These regulatory priorities exemplify the five components of the Secretary's opportunity agenda:
• Training more people, including veterans and people with disabilities, to have the skills they need for the in-demand jobs of the 21st century;
• ensuring that individuals have the peace of mind that comes with access to health care, retirement, and federal workers' compensation benefits when they need them;
• safeguarding a fair day's pay for a fair day's work for all hardworking Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity;
• giving workers a voice in their workplaces; and
• protecting the safety and health of workers so they do not have to risk their lives for a paycheck.
Under Secretary Perez's leadership, the Department continues its commitment to ensuring that collaboration, consensus-building and extensive stakeholder outreach are integral to all of its regulatory efforts. Successful rulemaking requires that we build a big table and keep an open mind.
Sustained economic growth requires a fundamental transformation of the workforce development system, building new partnerships, engaging employers, emphasizing proven strategies like apprenticeships, and preparing people for the demands of the 21st century economy as never before. The Department's regulatory priorities reflect the Secretary's vision for a modern job-driven workforce system that helps businesses stay on the competitive cutting edge and helps workers punch their ticket to the middle class.
• ETA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 16, 2015, that implements the important changes made to the public workforce system by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128), signed by the President on July 22, 2014, and replacing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and amending the Wagner-Peyser Act. This NPRM enables the Department to implement WIOA, empowering the public workforce system and its partners to increase employment, retention, and earnings of participants, meet the skill requirements of employers, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation.
• The Department's Civil Rights Center (CRC) will issue a proposed rule to implement the nondiscrimination provisions in Section 188 of WIOA. The rule would update the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination obligations in Section 188 of WIA to address current compliance issues in the workforce system, and to incorporate developments and interpretations of existing nondiscrimination law into the workforce development system. To ensure no gap in coverage between the effective date of WIOA and this rulemaking, CRC issued a Final Rule that makes only technical revisions to the WIA Section 188 rule, changing references from “WIA” to “WIOA.”
• ETA issued a NPRM on November 6, 2015 that proposes updated equal opportunity regulations implementing the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937, which prohibit discrimination in registered apprenticeship on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex, and which require that program sponsors take affirmative action to provide equal opportunity. Most notably, the proposed rule would update equal opportunity standards to include age (40 and older) and disability among the list of protected bases. It would also strengthen the affirmative action provisions by detailing mandatory actions that sponsors must take, and by requiring affirmative action for individuals with disabilities.
The American Dream does not end when a person retires. A financially secure retirement is a fundamental pillar of the middle class. People need access to retirement savings vehicles; and when they work hard and save responsibly, they need access to sound
• Last spring EBSA proposed a rule to help assure workers' retirement security by clarifying the circumstances under which a person will be considered a “fiduciary” when providing investment advice related to retirement plans, individual retirement accounts, and other employee benefit plans, and to participants, beneficiaries, and owners of such plans and accounts. The proposed rule includes a prohibited transaction exemption for any advice that raises any conflict of interest concerns so that the advice has to first be provided pursuant to a contract where the advisor agrees to provide the advice in the best interest of the client. The underlying principle is very simple and rooted in basic common sense: if you want to give financial advice, you have to put your clients' best interests first, and not your own. EBSA continues to review the extensive public comments submitted on the proposed rule.
• EBSA recognizes that around one-third of American workers lack access to a retirement plan at work. Inadequate retirement savings places stress on various state and federal retirement income support programs. Some states have passed laws to set up state-based auto-enrollment IRA arrangements for workers whose employers don't offer a plan. However, many of these states remain concerned about preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. At the President's direction on July 13, 2015, EBSA plans to publish a proposed rule to clarify how states can move forward, including with respect to requirements to automatically enroll employees, and offer coverage in ways that are consistent with federal laws governing employee benefit plans.
EBSA will also continue to issue guidance implementing the health reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act, giving more people greater access to quality medical care. EBSA's regulations reduce discrimination in health coverage, promote better access to quality coverage, and protect the ability of individuals and businesses to keep their current health coverage. Many of these regulations are joint rulemakings with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury.
The Department also promulgates regulations to ensure that federal workers' compensation benefits programs are fairly administered:
• OWCP will issue a Final Rule under the Black Lung Benefits Act that will address claimants' and coal mine operators' responsibility to disclose medical information developed in connection with a claim.
• OWCP will issue an additional NPRM under the Black Lung Benefits Act that would address how medical providers are reimbursed for covered services rendered to coal miners, including the possibility of modernizing and standardizing payment methodologies and fee schedules.
The Department's regulatory agenda prioritizes ensuring that all Americans receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and are not discriminated against with respect to hiring, employment, or benefits on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The Department takes a robust approach to implementing its wage-and-hour and nondiscrimination regulations through education, outreach and strategic enforcement across industries. These regulations are grounded in a commitment to an inclusive and diverse workforce and rewarding hard work with a fair wage to provide workers with a real pathway to middle class jobs.
• WHD plans to publish a Final Rule revising the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA's) overtime exemptions, as directed by a March 2014 Presidential Memorandum. The FLSA generally requires covered employers to pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, and one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek (“overtime”). However, there are a number of exemptions from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements, including an exemption for bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees. In line with the Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary to modernize and streamline the existing overtime regulations for these “white collar” employees to ensure that hardworking middle-class workers are not denied overtime protections that Congress intended, the Department issued an NPRM that would raise the salary threshold. The Department is currently analyzing comments.
• WHD will issue a proposed rule to establish the ability of employees of federal contractors to earn seven days of paid sick leave per year, implementing Executive Order 13706, signed by President Obama on September 7, 2015, enabling these workers to use leave to care for themselves, family members, or loved ones without fear of losing their paychecks or their jobs.
There is a direct link throughout our nation's history between a vibrant middle class and the power of worker voice. The economy is strong when the middle class is strong, and the middle class is strong when workers have a seat at the table, when they have a chance to organize and negotiate for their fair share of the value they helped create. By contrast, it's not a coincidence that middle-class wage stagnation coincides with a decline in the percentage of workers represented by unions. The Department's regulatory program therefore promotes policies that give workers a voice on the job.
• OFCCP recently issued a Final Rule implementing Executive Order 13665, signed by the President on April 8, 2014, prohibiting discrimination by Federal contractors and subcontractors against certain of their employees for disclosing compensation information. This Executive Order was intended to address policies that limit the ability to advocate for themselves about their pay and that prohibit employee conversations about compensation, which can serve as a significant barrier to Federal enforcement of the laws against compensation discrimination.
• OLMS plans to publish a Final Rule that will better align our regulations with the statutory text of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) to create greater balance between union and employer/consultant reporting requirements in situations where employers engage consultants to persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively. This is one important step to enhance workers' abilities to make
No one should have to sacrifice their life for their livelihood, and a nation built on the dignity of work must provide safe working conditions for its people. Through our rulemaking, we are committed to protecting workers in all kinds of workplaces, including above- and below-ground coal and metal/nonmetal mines, and we want to ensure that benefits programs are available to workers and their families when they are injured on the job. So many workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities are preventable. They not only put workers in harm's way, they jeopardize their economic security, often forcing families out of the middle class and into poverty. The Department's safety and health regulatory proposals are based on the responsibility of employers to provide workers with workplaces that do not threaten their safety or health and we reject the false choice between worker safety and economic growth. Our efforts will both save lives and improve employers' bottom lines.
• OSHA's top priority is a Final Rule aimed at curbing lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney disease in America's workers by lowering worker exposure to crystalline silica, which kills hundreds and sickens thousands more each year. OSHA estimates that the proposed rule would ultimately save nearly 700 lives and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis annually. OSHA held public hearings over nearly a month last spring in Washington, DC, during which over 200 industry, labor, and public health stakeholders participated. The post-hearing brief period ended on August 18, 2014.
• OSHA is developing a Final Rule that will address employers' electronic submission of data required by agency regulations governing the Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries. An updated and modernized reporting system would enable a more efficient and timely collection of data—including by leveraging data already maintained electronically by many large employers—and would improve the accuracy and availability of relevant records and statistics, in addition to leveraging data already maintained electronically by many large employers.
• MSHA issued a proposed rule that would require underground mine operators to equip certain mobile machines with proximity detection systems.
On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The Department is committed to smart regulations that ensure the health welfare and safety of all working Americans and foster economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness of American business. The Department's Fall 2015 Regulatory Agenda also aims to achieve more efficient and less burdensome regulations through a retrospective review of the Labor Department regulations.
In August 2011, as part of a government-wide response to the E.O., the Department published its “Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules.” (This plan, and each subsequent update, can be found at
Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (80 FR 54697).
Costs will be determined as part of the NPRM.
Final, Statutory, January 18, 2016.
Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. ASTM International has published recommended standards for addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.
The NPRM was published on September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56274). OSHA received over 1,700 comments from the public on the proposed rule, and over 200 stakeholders provided testimony during public hearings on the proposal. The agency is now reviewing and considering the evidence in the rulemaking record.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of nine operating administrations and the Office of the Secretary, each of which has statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, commercial space, public transportation, and pipeline transportation areas. DOT also regulates aviation consumer and economic issues and provides financial assistance for programs involving highways, airports, public transportation, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle safety. In addition, the Department writes regulations to carry out a variety of statutes ranging from the Americans With Disabilities Act to the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT develops and implements a wide range of regulations that govern internal DOT programs such as acquisitions and grants, access for the disabled, environmental protection, energy conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, property asset management, seismic safety, and the use of aircraft and vehicles.
The Department's regulatory priorities respond to the challenges and opportunities we face. Our mission generally is as follows:
The national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, and the security of the United States require the development of transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent with those and other national objectives, including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the United States.
To help us achieve our mission, we have five goals in the Department's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018:
•
•
•
•
•
In identifying our regulatory priorities for the next year, the Department considered its mission and goals and focused on a number of factors, including the following:
This regulatory plan identifies the Department's regulatory priorities—the 19 pending rulemakings chosen, from among the dozens of significant rulemakings listed in the Department's broader regulatory agenda, that the Department believes will merit special attention in the upcoming year. The rules included in the regulatory plan embody the Department's focus on our strategic goals.
The regulatory plan reflects the Department's primary focus on safety—a focus that extends across several modes of transportation. For example:
• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will continue its efforts to implement safety management systems.
• The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) continues its work to strengthen the requirements for Electronic Logging Devices and revise motor carrier safety fitness determination procedures.
• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will continue its rulemaking efforts to reduce death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
Each of the rulemakings in the regulatory plan is described below in detail. In order to place them in context, we first review the Department's regulatory philosophy and our initiatives to educate and inform the public about transportation safety issues. We then describe the role of the Department's retrospective reviews and its regulatory process and other important regulatory initiatives of OST and of each of the Department's components. Since each transportation “mode” within the Department has its own area of focus, we summarize the regulatory priorities of each mode and of OST, which supervises and coordinates modal initiatives and has its own regulatory responsibilities, such as consumer protection in the aviation industry.
The Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to all its rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as follows: DOT regulations must be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. They will be issued only after an appropriate opportunity for public comment, which must provide an equal chance for all affected interests to participate, and after appropriate consultation with other governmental entities. The Department will fully consider the comments received. It will assess the risks addressed by the rules and their costs and benefits, including the cumulative effects. The Department will consider appropriate alternatives, including nonregulatory approaches. It will also make every effort to ensure that regulation does not impose unreasonable mandates.
The Department stresses the importance of conducting high-quality rulemakings in a timely manner and reducing the number of old rulemakings. To implement this, the Department has required the following actions: (1) Regular meetings of senior DOT officials to ensure effective policy leadership and timely decisions, (2) effective tracking and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) early briefings of interested officials, (5) regular training of staff, and (6) adequate allocations of resources. The Department has achieved significant success because of this effort. It allows the Department to use its resources more effectively and efficiently.
The Department's regulatory policies and procedures provide a comprehensive internal management and review process for new and existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary and other appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all significant DOT rules. DOT continually seeks to improve its regulatory process. A few examples include: The Department's development of regulatory process and related training courses for its employees; creation of an electronic rulemaking tracking and coordination system; the use of direct final rulemaking; the use of regulatory negotiation; a continually expanding and improved Internet page that provides important regulatory information, including “effects” reports and status reports (
In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety of activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and its customers that will produce good results for transportation programs and safety. The Department's agencies also have established a number of continuing partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking advisory committees.
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Department actively engaged in a special retrospective review of our existing rules to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. This review was in addition to those reviews in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. As part of this effort, we also reviewed our processes for determining what rules to review and ensuring that the rules are effectively reviewed. As a result of the review, we identified many rules for expedited review and changes to our retrospective review process. Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. If a retrospective review action has been completed it will no longer appear on the list below. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings on the Unified Agenda publications at Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that
Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation) stresses that “[i]n an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of” Executive Order 13563 to “protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” DOT has long recognized the value of international regulatory cooperation and has engaged in a variety of activities with both foreign governments and international bodies. These activities have ranged from cooperation in the development of particular standards to discussions of necessary steps for rulemakings in general, such as risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses of possible standards. Since the issuance of Executive Order 13609, we have increased our efforts in this area. For example, many of DOT's Operating Administrations are active in groundbreaking government-wide Regulatory Cooperation Councils (RCC) with Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. These RCC working groups are setting a precedent in developing and testing approaches to international coordination of rulemaking to reduce barriers to international trade. We also have been exploring innovative approaches to ease the development process.
Examples of the many cooperative efforts we are engaged in include the following:
The FAA maintains ongoing efforts with foreign civil aviation authorities, including in particular the European Aviation Safety Agency and Transport Canada, to harmonize standards and practices where doing so will improve the safety of aviation and aviation-related activities. The FAA also plays an active role in the standard-setting work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), particularly on the Air Navigation Commission and the Legal Committee. In doing so, the FAA works with other Nations to shape the standards and recommended practices adopted by ICAO. The FAA's rulemaking actions related to safety management systems are examples of the FAA's harmonization efforts.
NHTSA is actively engaged in international regulatory cooperative efforts on both a multilateral and a bilateral basis, exchanging information on best practices and otherwise seeking to leverage its resources for addressing vehicle issues in the U.S. As noted in Executive Order 13609: “(i)n meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
As the representative, for vehicle safety matters, of the United States, one of 33 contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement on the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, NHTSA is an active participant in the World Forum for Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at the UN. Under that umbrella, NHTSA is currently working on the development of harmonized regulations for the safety of electric vehicles; hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles; advanced head restraints; pole side impact test procedures; pedestrian protection; the safety risks associated with quieter vehicles, such as electric and hybrid electric vehicles; and advancements in tires.
In recognition of the large cross-border market in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is working bilaterally with Transport Canada under the Motor Vehicles Working Group of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) to facilitate implementation of the initial RCC Joint Action Plan. Under this Plan, NHTSA and Transport Canada are working on the development of international standards on quieter vehicles, electric vehicle safety, and hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.
Building on the initial Joint Action Plan, the U.S. and Canada issued a Joint Forward Plan on August 29, 2014. The Forward Plan provided that regulators would develop Regulatory Partnership Statements (RPSs) outlining the framework for how cooperative activities will be managed between agencies. In that same period, regulators will also develop and complete detailed work plans to begin to address the commitments in the Forward Plan. To facilitate future cooperation, the RCC will work over the next year on cross-cutting issues in areas such as: “sharing information with foreign governments, joint funding of new initiatives and our respective rulemaking processes.”
To broaden and deepen its cooperative efforts with the European Union, NHTSA is participating in ongoing negotiations regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which is “aimed at providing greater compatibility and transparency in trade and investment regulation, while maintaining high levels of health, safety, and environmental protection.” NHTSA is seeking to build on existing levels of safety and lay the groundwork for future cooperation in addressing emerging safety issues and technologies.
PHMSA's hazardous material group works with ICAO, the UN Subcommittee of Experts on Dangerous Goods, and the International Maritime Organization. Through participation in these international bodies, PHMSA is able to advocate on behalf of U.S. safety and commercial interests to guide the development of international standards with which U.S. businesses have to comply when shipping in international commerce. PHMSA additionally participates in the RCC with Canada and has a Memorandum of Cooperation in place to ensure that cross-border shipments are not hampered by conflicting regulations. The pipeline group at PHMSA incorporates many standards by reference into the Pipeline Safety Regulations, and the development of these standards benefit from the participation of experts from around the world.
In the areas of airline consumer protection and civil rights regulation, OST is particularly conscientious in seeking international regulatory cooperation. For example, the Department participates in the standard-setting activities of ICAO and meets and works with other governments and international airline associations on the implementation of U.S. and foreign aviation rules.
For a number of years the Department has also provided information on which of its rulemaking actions have international effects. This information, updated monthly, is available at the Department's regulatory information Web site,
As we identify rulemakings arising out of our ongoing regulatory cooperation activities that we reasonably anticipate will lead to significant regulations, we will add them to our Web site report and subsequent Agendas and Plans.
The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example, the Department
The Department continues to place great emphasis on the need to complete high-quality rulemakings by involving senior departmental officials in regular meetings to resolve issues expeditiously.
The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process for the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies and procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563, DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting rulemaking. Although OST's principal role concerns the review of the Department's significant rulemakings, this office has the lead role in the substance of such projects as those concerning aviation economic rules, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rules that affect multiple elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory requirements and process for personnel throughout the Department. OST also plays an instrumental role in the Department's efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk assessments; regulatory flexibility analyses; other related analyses; retrospective reviews of rules; and data quality, including peer reviews.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) intergovernmental review of other agencies' significant rulemaking documents and to Administration and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory process. The General Counsel's office works closely with representatives of other agencies, OMB, the White House, and congressional staff to provide information on how various proposals would affect the ability of the Department to perform its safety, infrastructure, and other missions.
During Fiscal Year 2016, OST will focus its efforts on voice communications on passengers´ mobile wireless devices on scheduled flights within, to and from the United States (2105-AE30).
OST will also continue its efforts on the following rulemaking initiatives:
OST will also continue its efforts to help coordinate the activities of several operating administrations that advance various departmental efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on promoting safety, stimulating the economy and creating jobs, sustaining and building America's transportation infrastructure, and improving quality of life for the people and communities who use transportation systems subject to the Department's policies. It will also continue to oversee the Department's rulemaking actions to implement the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21).
The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with safely and efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system in the world. Destination 2025, an FAA initiative that captures the agency's vision of transforming the Nation's aviation system by 2025, has proven to be an effective tool for pushing the agency to think about longer-term aspirations; FAA has established a vision that defines the agency's priorities for the next five years. The changing technological and industry environment compels us to transform the agency. And the challenging fiscal environment we face only increases the need to prioritize our goals.
We have identified four major strategic initiatives where we will focus our efforts: (1) Risk-based Decision Making—Build on safety management principles to proactively address emerging safety risk by using consistent, data-informed approaches to make smarter, system-level, risk-based decisions; (2) NAS Initiative—Lay the foundation for the National Airspace System of the future by achieving prioritized NextGen benefits, enabling the safe and efficient integration of new user entrants including Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Commercial Space flights, and deliver more efficient, streamlined air traffic management services; (3) Global Leadership—Improve safety, air traffic efficiency, and environmental sustainability across the globe through an integrated, data-driven approach that shapes global standards, enhances collaboration and harmonization, and better targets FAA resources and efforts; and (4) Workforce of the Future—Prepare FAA's human capital for the future, by identifying, recruiting, and training a workforce with the leadership, technical, and functional skills to ensure the U.S. has the world's safest and most productive aviation sector.
FAA activities that may lead to rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2016 include continuing to:
• Promote and expand safety information-sharing efforts, such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety programs that prioritize and address risks before they lead to accidents. Specifically, FAA will continue implementing Commercial Aviation Safety Team projects related to controlled flight into terrain, loss of control of an aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions, weather, pilot decision making, and cabin safety. Some of these projects may result in rulemaking and guidance materials.
• Respond to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), which directed the FAA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to issue guidelines and regulations relating to ADS-B In technology and recommendations from an Aviation Rulemaking Committee on ADS-B-In capabilities in consideration of the FAA's evolving thinking on how to provide an integrated suite of communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) capabilities to achieve full NextGen performance.
• Respond to the Act, which also recommended we complete the rulemaking for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and consider how to fully integrate UAS operations in the NAS, which will require future rulemaking.
• Respond to the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (H.R. 5900), which requires the FAA to develop and implement Safety Management Systems (SMS) where these systems will
• Respond to the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1848), which requires the FAA adopt the recommendations from part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) for improving safety and reducing certification costs for general aviation. The ARC recommendations include a broad range of policy and regulatory changes that it believes could significantly improve the safety of general aviation aircraft while simultaneously reducing certification and modification costs for these aircraft. Among the ARC's recommendations is a suggestion that compliance with part 23 requirements be performance-based, focusing on the complexity and performance of an aircraft instead of the current regulations based on weight and type of propulsion. In announcing the ARC's recommendations, the Secretary of Transportation said “Streamlining the design and certification process could provide a cost-efficient way to build simple airplanes that still incorporate the latest in safety initiatives. These changes have the potential to save money and maintain our safety standing—a win-win situation for manufacturers, pilots and the general aviation community as a whole.” Further, these changes are consistent with directions to agencies in [Executive Order 13610 “
• Work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. aviation regulations with those of other countries, without compromising rigorous safety standards, or our requirements to develop cost benefit analysis. The differences worldwide in certification standards, practice and procedures, and operating rules must be identified and minimized to reduce the regulatory burden on the international aviation system. The differences between the FAA regulations and the requirements of other nations impose a heavy burden on U.S. aircraft manufacturers and operators, some of which are small businesses. Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry remain internationally competitive. The FAA continues to publish regulations based on internal analysis, public comment, and recommendations of Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result of cooperative rulemaking between the U.S. and other countries.
FAA top regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 include:
The Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems rulemaking would:
• Adopt specific rules for the operation of small unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system; and
• Address the classification of small unmanned aircraft, certification of their pilots and visual observers, registration, approval of operations, and operational limits.
The Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes rulemaking would:
• Reorganize part 23 into performance-based requirements by removing the detailed design requirements from part 23;
• Promote the adoption of the newly created performance-based airworthiness design standard as an internationally accepted standard by the majority of other civil aviation authorities;
• Re-align the part 23 requirements to promote the development of entry-level airplanes similar to those certified under Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft (CS-VLA);
• Enhance the FAA's ability to address new technology;
• Increase the general aviation (GA) level of safety provided by new and modified airplanes;
• Amend the stall, stall warning, and spin requirements to reduce fatal accidents and increase crashworthiness by allowing new methods for occupant protection; and
• Address icing conditions that are currently not included in part 23 regulations.
The Airport Safety Management System rulemaking would:
• Require certain airport certificate holders to develop, implement, maintain, and adhere to a safety management system (SMS) for its aviation related activities.
The Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership and Professional Development rulemaking would:
• Ensure air carriers establish or modify training programs to address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight crewmembers in part 121 operations.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
• With ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface transportation programs;
• To implement legislation in the most cost-effective way possible; and
• To pursue regulatory reform in areas where project development can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or simplified, and the decisionmaking authority of our State and local partners can be increased.
MAP-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the two-year period from 2012-2014. The FHWA has analyzed MAP-21 to identify Congressionally directed rulemakings. These rulemakings will be the FHWA's top regulatory priorities for the coming year.
Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA regulations to ensure that they are consistent with MAP-21 and will update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently enacted legislation.
During Fiscal Year 2016, FHWA will continue its focus on improving the quality and performance of our Nation's highway systems by creating national performance management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21 under the following rulemaking initiatives:
The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance this safety mission. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety regulations based on three core priorities: Raising the safety bar for entry, maintaining high standards, and removing high-risk behavior. In addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations mandated by Congress, through legislation such as MAP-21. FMCSA regulations establish standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers, commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2016 includes completion of a number of rulemakings that are high priorities for the Agency because they would have a positive impact on safety. Among the rulemakings included in the plan are: (1) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), (2) Entry Level Driver Training (RIN 2126-AB66), and (3) Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-AB18).
Together, these priority rules could improve substantially commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our Nation's highways by increasing FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor carriers and commercial drivers.
In FY 2016, FMCSA plans to complete the public comment period and issue a final rule on Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11) to establish a new safety fitness determination standard that will enable the Agency to prohibit “unfit” carriers from operating on the Nation's highways and contribute to the Agency's overall goal of decreasing CMV-related fatalities and injuries.
In FY 2016, FMCSA plans to complete the public comment period and issue a final rule on Entry Level Driver Training (RIN 2126-AB66). This rule would establish training requirements for individuals before they can obtain their CDL or certain endorsements. It will define curricula for training providers and establish requirements and procedures for the schools. The proposed rule is based on consensus recommendations from the Agency's Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee that held a series of 6 meetings between February and May 2015.
Also in FY 2016, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-AB18). The rule would establish a clearinghouse requiring employers and service agents to report information about current and prospective employees' drug and alcohol test results. It would require employers and certain service agents to search the Clearinghouse for current and prospective employees' positive drug and alcohol test results as a condition of permitting those employees to perform safety-sensitive functions. This would provide FMCSA and employers the necessary tools to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a CMV based on DOT drug and alcohol program violations and ensure that such drivers receive the required evaluation and treatment before resuming safety-sensitive functions.
The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include reducing the number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. NHTSA pursues policies that encourage the development of non-regulatory approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
In Fiscal Year 2016, NHTSA, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, will publish a final rule to address phase two of fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks for model years beyond 2018. This final rule will be responsive to requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 as well as the President's Climate Action Plan.
NHTSA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications in Fiscal Year 2016. V2V communications are currently perceived to become a foundational aspect of vehicle automation. In response to requirements in MAP-21, NHTSA plans to issue a NPRM that would propose requiring automobile manufacturers to install a seat belt reminder system for the front passenger and rear designated seating positions in passenger vehicles. The seat belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and thereby improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would otherwise have been unbelted. The Agency will also continue work toward a NPRM that would consider requirements for rear impact guards and other safety strategies on single unit trucks to mitigate under-ride crashes into the rear of single unit trucks.
In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance of motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged in a variety of programs to improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high-priority areas: Safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these issue areas, the Agency is focusing especially on three strategies—conducting highly visible, well-publicized enforcement; supporting prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and adopting alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat use; combat excessive speed, driver distraction, and aggressive driving; improve motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and provide consumer information to the public.
FRA's current regulatory program reflects a number of pending proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), and
Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is working to complete its on-going development of requirements related to the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction and system safety programs. FRA is developing proposed rulemaking documents based on the recommendations of an RSAC working group containing the fatigue management provisions related to both proceedings. FRA is also in the process of developing a significant regulatory action that would propose requirements related to the crew size of passenger and freight trains, including trains transporting crude oil and ethanol by rail. FRA continues its work to produce a rulemaking containing RSAC-supported actions that advance high-performing passenger rail to proposed standards for alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment. Finally, FRA is developing proposed rules regarding track inspections aimed at improving rail integrity to allow continuous rail integrity testing and to address the use of inward and outward facing locomotive-mounted cameras and other recording devices.
FTA helps communities support public transportation by making grants of Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit facilities, and planning and operation of transit and other transit-related purposes. FTA regulatory activity implements the laws that apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and conditions of FTA grant awards. FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
• Ensure the safety of public transportation systems.
• Provide maximum benefit to the Nation's mobility through the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
• Provide maximum local discretion;
• Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
• Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation;
• Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant management process.
As the needs for public transportation have changed over the years, the Federal transit programs have grown in number and complexity often requiring implementation through the rulemaking process. FTA is currently implementing many of its public transportation programs authorized under MAP-21 through the regulatory process. To that end, FTA's regulatory priorities include implementing the newly authorized Public Transportation Safety Program (49 U.S.C. 5329), such as the Public Transportation Safety Plan and updating the State Safety Oversight rule, as well as, implementing requirements for Transit Asset Management Systems (49 U.S.C. 5326). The joint FTA/FHWA planning rule which will be merged with FTA/FHWA's Additional Authorities for Planning and Environmental Linkages rule and FTA's Bus Testing rule round out its regulatory priorities.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system to meet the economic, environmental, and security needs of the Nation. To that end, MARAD's efforts are focused upon ensuring a strong American presence in the domestic and international trades and to expanding maritime opportunities for American businesses and workers.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the agency's responsibility for ensuring the availability of water transportation services for American shippers and consumers and, in times of war or national emergency, for the U.S. armed forces. Major program areas include the following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force, Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support, Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development. Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at home.
MARAD's primary regulatory activities in Fiscal Year 2016 will be to continue the update of existing regulations as part of the Department's Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, and to propose new regulations where appropriate.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 included a number of rulemaking studies and mandates and additional enforcement authorities that continue to impact PHMSA's regulatory activities in Fiscal Year 2015.
MAP-21 reauthorized the hazardous materials safety program and required several regulatory actions by PHMSA. PHMSA has been very effective in implementing the MAP-21 provisions. MAP-21 established over thirty distinct provisions applicable to PHMSA's Hazardous Materials Safety Program. For example, MAP-21 required PHMSA to codify its procedures for issuing special permits and the criteria it uses to evaluate special permit and approval applications. MAP-21 requires PHMSA to conduct a review of existing special permits and publish a rulemaking every two years to codify special permits that have been in continuous effect for a ten-year period. MAP-21 also requires PHMSA to evaluate the feasibility of paperless hazard communication as an effective means for transmitting shipment information between shippers, carriers, responders, and enforcement officials.
PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes, including
PHMSA will continue to focus on the streamlining of its regulatory system and reducing regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to evaluate, analyze, and be responsive to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review regulations, letters of interpretation, petitions for rulemaking, special permits, enforcement actions, approvals, and international standards to identify inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and barriers to regulatory compliance.
PHMSA aims to reduce the risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials by rail. Preventing tank car incidents and minimizing the consequences when an incident does occur are not only DOT priorities, but are also shared by our Federal and international partners, the NTSB, industry, and the general public. Expansion in United States energy production has led to significant challenges in the transportation system. Expansion in oil production has led to increasing volumes of energy products transported to refineries. With a growing domestic supply, rail transportation, in particular, has emerged as an alternative to transportation by pipeline or vessel. The growing reliance on trains to transport large volumes of flammable liquids raises risks that have been highlighted by the recent instances of trains carrying crude oil that have derailed. PHMSA and FRA issued a final rule on May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26643), designed to lessen the frequency and consequences of train accidents involving flammable liquids. In addition, PHMSA and FRA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 45079), seeking comment on potential revisions to its regulations that would expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRPs) for crude oil trains. PHMSA will continue to take regulatory actions to enhance the safe transportation of energy products.
On October 13, 2015 [80 FR 61609], PHMSA issued an NPRM proposing changes to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. Specifically, the agency proposed regulatory changes relative to High Consequence Areas (HCAs) for integrity management (IM) protections, repair timeframes, and reporting for all hazardous liquid gathering lines. The agency also addressed public safety and environmental aspects of any new requirements, as well as the cost implications and regulatory burden.
PHMSA also will be revisiting the requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations addressing integrity management principles for Gas Transmission pipelines. In particular, PHMSA is planning to propose requirements to address repair criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas, assessment methods, validating and integrating pipeline data, risk assessments, knowledge gained through the IM program, corrosion control, management of change, gathering lines, and safety features on launchers and receivers.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change after interagency review.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change after interagency review.
Related
Final, Statutory, October 1, 2015, Final Rule.
Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change after interagency review.
The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
• To promote prosperous and stable American and world economies, including promoting domestic economic growth and maintaining our Nation's leadership in global economic issues, supervising national banks and thrift institutions, and helping to bring residents of distressed communities into the economic mainstream.
• To manage the Government's finances by protecting the revenue and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the Internal Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue functions, financing the Federal Government and managing its fiscal operations, and producing our Nation's coins and currency.
• To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems from those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or to compromise U.S. national security interests, while keeping them free and open to legitimate users.
Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments before adopting a final rule. Also, the Department invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while a proposed rule is being developed.
To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609 and to develop regulations that maximize aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses subject to those regulations.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations to implement and enforce the Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain non-tax laws relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
(1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition;
(2) protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol products; and
(3) prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and tobacco products.
In the last several years, TTB has identified changes in the industries it regulates, as well as new technologies available in compliance enforcement. In response, TTB has focused on revising its regulations to ensure that it accomplishes its mission in a way that facilitates industry growth and reduces burdens where possible, while at the same time collecting the revenue and protecting consumers from deceptive labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages. This modernization effort resulted in the publishing of two key rulemakings that took effect in FY 2014-15 that reduced burden on TTB-regulated industry members.
On March 27, 2014, TTB published a final rule (79 FR 17029) amending its regulations in 27 CFR part 73 regarding the electronic submission of forms and other documents. Among other things, this rule provided for the electronic submission to TTB of forms requiring third-party signatures, such as bond forms and powers of attorney. It also provided that any requirement in the TTB regulations to submit a document to another agency may be met by the electronic submission of the document to the other agency, as long as the other agency provides for, and authorizes, the electronic submission of such document.
On September 30, 2014, TTB published a final rule (79 FR 58674) that reduced the compliance burden for the beer industry. This rule reduced the penal sum of the bond required for certain small brewers to a flat $1,000, which applies to brewers whose excise tax liability is reasonably expected to be not more than $50,000 in a given calendar year and who were liable for not more than $50,000 in such taxes in the preceding calendar year. Additionally, TTB adopted as a final rule its prior proposal to provide that those brewers must file Federal excise tax returns, pay tax, and submit reports of operations less frequently, that is every quarter rather than twice monthly.
As part of this rulemaking, TTB also made a number of changes to the forms brewers use to report on their operations. The two versions of the Brewer's Report of Operations forms (TTB F 5130.9 and TTB F 5130.26) were streamlined based on feedback from the industry. These changes included removing two separate parts, adding clarifying instructions, and revising TTB F 5130.26 (previously for brewpub reporting only) to be an “EZ” reporting option for small brewers to facilitate the new quarterly reporting mandate. TTB released the new versions of the reports in the second quarter of FY 2015. This combination of regulatory amendments and form changes have reduced regulatory burdens and administrative costs for small brewers and created administrative efficiencies for TTB.
In FY 2016, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that will update its Import and Export regulations, Labeling Requirements regulations, Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol regulations, Nonbeverage Products regulations, Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting requirements, and Civil Monetary Penalty for Violations of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act regulation.
This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following regulatory matters:
Revisions to Export and Import Regulations Related to the International Trade Data System. TTB is currently preparing for the implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and, specifically, the transition to an all-electronic import and export environment. The ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (the “SAFE Port Act”) (Public Law 109-347), is an electronic information exchange capability, or “single window,” through which businesses will transmit data required by participating Federal agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination associated with the development of the ITDS and put in place specific deadlines for implementation, President Obama, on February 19, 2014, signed an Executive Order on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses. In line with section 3(e) of the Executive Order, TTB was required to develop a timeline for ITDS implementation. Updating the regulations for transition to the all-
TTB has completed its review of the relevant regulatory requirements and identified those that it intends to update to address an all-electronic environment. As noted above, TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 73 have already been amended to remove regulatory barriers to the electronic submission of TTB-required documents to another agency. In FY 2016, TTB intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose changes to TTB regulatory sections that address the submission of information or documentation at importation, and to update and streamline TTB regulatory processes for importations and make clear the circumstances in which the submission of certain data elements replaces the submission of paper documents. Specifically, TTB will propose that data from certain forms (
On August 7, 2015, TTB published a notice (80 FR 47558) announcing a pilot program for importers who want to gain experience with the ITDS “single window” functionality for providing data on the TTB-regulated commodities. This pilot program will help familiarize both TTB and the public with the new environment and assist TTB and the public to refine the implementation of ITDS. TTB is planning to publish rulemaking on its import and export regulations in FY 2016, and the pilot program will provide valuable information for this undertaking.
In addition, in recent years, TTB has identified selected sections of its export regulations (27 CFR parts 28 and 44) that it intends to amend to clarify and update the requirements. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), the products taxed by TTB may be removed for exportation without payment of tax or with drawback of any excise tax previously paid, subject to the submission of proof of export. However, the current export regulations require industry members to obtain documents and follow procedures that do not reflect current technology or take into account current industry business practices. The notice of proposed rulemaking that TTB will publish to implement ITDS for exports will include proposals to amend the regulations to provide industry members with clear and updated procedures for removal of alcohol and tobacco products for exportation, thus facilitating exportation of those products. Increasing U.S. exports benefits the U.S. economy and is consistent with Treasury and Administration priorities.
Revisions to the Labeling Requirements (Parts 4 (Wine), 5 (Distilled Spirits), and 7 (Malt Beverages)). The Federal Alcohol Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in interstate commerce have a label issued and approved under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with the mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, regarding improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB conducted an analysis of its labeling regulations to identify any that might be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with that analysis. These regulations were also reviewed to assess their applicability to the modern alcohol beverage marketplace. As a result of this review, TTB plans to propose in FY 2016 revisions to modernize the regulations concerning the labeling requirements for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. TTB anticipates that these regulatory changes will assist industry in voluntarily complying with these requirements for the over 160,000 label applications that are projected to be submitted in FY 2016, which will decrease industry burden associated with the label approval requirement and result in the regulated industries being able to bring products to market without undue delay.
Revisions to Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol Regulations. TTB proposed changes to regulations for specially denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely denatured alcohol (CDA) that will provide a reduction in regulatory burden while posing no risk to the revenue.
Under the authority of the IRC, TTB regulates denatured alcohol that is unfit for beverage use, which may be removed from a regulated distilled spirits plant free of tax. SDA and CDA are widely used in the American fuel, medical, and manufacturing sectors. The industrial alcohol industry far exceeds the beverage alcohol industry in size and scope, and it is a rapidly growing industry in the United States. Some concerns have been raised that the current regulations may create significant roadblocks for industry members in getting products to the marketplace quickly and efficiently. To help alleviate these concerns, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 38628) and, in FY 2016, plans to issue a final rule that will reclassify certain SDA formulas as CDA and issue new general-use formulas for articles made with SDA.
TTB estimates that these changes will result in an 80 percent reduction in the formula approval submissions currently required from industry members. The reduction in formula submissions will enable TTB to redirect its resources to address backlogs that exist in other areas of TTB's mission activities, such as analyses of compliance samples for industrial/fuel alcohol to protect the revenue and working with industry to test and approve new and more environmentally friendly denaturants. Additionally, the reclassification of certain SDA formulas as CDA formulas will not jeopardize the revenue because it is more difficult to separate potable alcohol from CDA than it is from SDA, and CDA is less likely to be used for beverage purposes due to its taste. Similarly, authorizing new general-use formulas will not jeopardize the revenue because it will be difficult to remove potable alcohol from articles made with the specific SDA formulations. Other changes made by this final rule will remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and update the regulations to align them with current industry practice.
Revision of the Part 17 Regulations, Drawback on Taxpaid Distilled Spirits Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage Products, to Allow Self-Certification of Nonbeverage Product Formulas. TTB is considering revisions to the regulations in 27 CFR part 17 governing nonbeverage products made with taxpaid distilled spirits. These nonbeverage products include foods, medicines, and flavors. This proposal, which TTB intends to publish in FY 2016, offers a new method of formula certification by incorporating quantitative standards into the regulations and establishing new voluntary procedures that would further
Revisions to Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting Requirements. In FY 2012, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to revise regulations in 27 CFR part 19 to replace the current four report forms used by distilled spirits plants to report their operations on a monthly basis with two new report forms that would be submitted on a monthly basis. (Plants that file taxes on a quarterly basis would submit the new reports on a quarterly basis.) This project will address numerous concerns and desires for improved reporting by the distilled spirits industry and result in cost savings to industry and TTB by significantly reducing the number of monthly plant operations reports that must be completed and filed by industry members and processed by TTB. TTB preliminarily estimates that this project will result in a reduction of paperwork burden hours for industry members, as well as savings in processing hours and contractor time for TTB. In addition, TTB estimates that this project will result in additional savings in staff time based on the more efficient and effective processing of reports and the use of report data to reconcile industry member tax accounts. In FY 2016, TTB intends to publish a Supplemental NPRM that will include new proposals to address comments received in response to the initial NPRM.
Inflation Adjustment to the Civil Monetary Penalty for Violations of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to adjust certain civil monetary penalties for inflation according to a formula set out in the statute. In FY 2016, TTB plans to publish a final rule increasing the maximum penalty for violations of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act from $11,000 (the level at which it was set following the first inflation adjustment in 1996) to $16,000. The increased maximum penalty will help maintain the deterrent effect of the penalty.
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) was established by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701
In FY 2016, the CDFI Fund will publish updated regulations for its Capital Magnet Fund (CMF) to incorporate the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) and make other policy updates.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that, although many functions of the former United States Customs Service were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over customs revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to promulgate regulations pertaining to the customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions. This Order further provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority to approve such regulations.
During the past fiscal year, among the customs-revenue function regulations issued were the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement interim final rule, the Documentation Related to Goods Imported from U.S. Insular Possessions final rule, Technical Corrections to the North American Free Trade Agreement Uniform Regulations final rule, and Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required As Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims final rule. On February 10, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection published the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement interim final rule (80 FR 7303) to the CBP regulations, which implemented the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. In addition, on May 11, 2015, CBP and Treasury issued a final rule (80 FR 26828) titled “Technical Corrections to the North American Free Trade Agreement Uniform Regulations” which amended CBP regulations implementing conforming changes of the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On August 7, 2015, CBP issued a final rule (80 FR 47405) titled “Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required As Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims” which amended CBP regulations by removing some of the requirements for documentation used to establish proof of exportation for drawback claims.
This past fiscal year, consistent with the goals of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, Treasury and CBP issued a final rule titled “Documentation Related to Goods Imported From U.S. Insular Possessions” on February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7537), that amended CBP regulations to eliminate the requirement that a customs officer at the port of export verify and sign CBP Form 3229, Certificate of Origin for U.S. Insular Possessions, and to require instead that the importer present this form, upon CBP's request, rather than submit it with each entry as the current regulations require. The amendments streamline the entry process by making it more efficient as it would reduce the overall administrative burden on both the trade and CBP. If the importer does not maintain CBP Form 3229 in its possession, the importer may be subject to a recordkeeping penalty.
Treasury and CBP are currently working towards the implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS). The ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (the “SAFE Port Act”) (Public Law 109-347), is an electronic information
During fiscal year 2016, CBP and Treasury also plan to give priority to the following regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions:
The primary mission of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and Federal Savings Associations (FSAs). The agency also supervises the Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC's goal in supervising the financial institutions subject to its jurisdiction is to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with laws requiring fair treatment of their customers and fair access to credit and financial products.
Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2015 include:
Integration of National Bank and Federal Savings Association Regulations: Licensing Rules (12 CFR parts 4, 5, 7, 14, 32, 34, 100, 116, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 174, 192, and 193). The OCC issued a final rule that integrates its rules relating to policies and procedures for corporate activities and transactions involving national banks and FSAs. The final rule also revises some of these rules in order to eliminate unnecessary requirements, consistent with safety and soundness; promote fairness in supervision; and to make other technical and conforming changes. The final rule also includes amendments to update OCC rules for agency organization and function. The final rule was issued on May 18, 2015, 80 FR 28345.
Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 172). The banking agencies,
Appraisal Management Companies (12 CFR part 34). The banking agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), NCUA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a rule that sets minimum standards for state registration and supervision of appraisal management companies (AMCs). The rule implements the minimum requirements in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act to be applied by states in the registration and supervision of AMCs. It also implements the requirement in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act for states to report to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council the information needed by the ASC to administer the national registry of AMCs. The final rule was issued on June 6, 2015, 80 FR 32658.
Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR part 45). The banking agencies, FCA, and FHFA issued a proposed rule to establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants for which one of the agencies is the prudential regulator. The proposed rule
Credit Risk Retention (12 CFR part 43). The banking agencies, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FHFA, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued rules to implement the credit risk retention requirements of section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-11), as added by section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 15G generally requires the securitizer of asset-backed securities to retain not less than 5 percent of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities. Section 15G includes a variety of exemptions from these requirements, including an exemption for asset-backed securities that are collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as “qualified residential mortgages,” as such term is defined by the agencies by rule. The final rule was issued on December 24, 2014, 78 FR 77602.
Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016 include finalizing any proposals listed above as well as the following rulemakings:
Automated Valuation Models (parts 34, 164). The banking agencies, NCUA, FHFA and CFPB, in consultation with the ASC and the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, are required to promulgate regulations to implement quality-control standards required under the statute. Section 1473(q) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that automated valuation models used to estimate collateral value in connection with mortgage origination and securitization activity, comply with quality-control standards designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by automated valuation models; protect against manipulation of data; seek to avoid conflicts of interest; require random sample testing and reviews; and account for other factors the agencies deem appropriate. The agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to implement the requirement to adopt quality-control standards.
Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies, NCUA, SEC, and FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations or guidance prohibiting any type of incentive-based payment arrangement, or any feature of any such arrangement, that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate risks by covered financial institutions by providing an executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees or benefits, or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires such agencies to jointly prescribe regulations or guidance requiring each covered financial institution to disclose to its regulator the structure of all incentive-based compensation arrangements offered by such institution sufficient to determine whether the compensation structure provides any officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation or could lead to material financial loss to the institution. The proposed rule was issued on April 14, 2011, 76 FR 21170.
Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). The banking agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to implement section 616(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 616(d) requires that bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and other companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength for the insured depository institution. The appropriate Federal banking agency for the insured depository institution may require that the company submit a report that would assess the company's ability to comply with the provisions of the statute and its compliance.
Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50). The banking agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to implement the Basel net stable funding ratio standards. These standards would require large, internationally active banking organizations to maintain sufficient stable funding to support their assets, generally over a one-year time horizon.
As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
During fiscal year 2015, FinCEN issued the following regulatory actions:
Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for Investment Advisers. On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the
Imposition of Special Measure against FBME Bank Ltd., formerly known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On July 29, 2015, FinCEN issued a final rule
Imposition of Special Measure against Banca Privada d'Andorra as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On March 10, 2015, FinCEN issued a finding that Banca Privada d'Andorra is a financial institution operating outside of the United States that is of primary money laundering concern under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Also on March 10, 2015, FinCEN issued an NPRM to impose the fifth special measure against the institution. The fifth special measure prohibits or conditions the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the designated institution by U.S. financial institutions.
Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 4 administrative rulings and written guidance pieces, and provided 30 responses to written inquiries/correspondence interpreting the BSA and providing clarity to regulated industries.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016 include finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential projects:
Customer Due Diligence Requirements. On August 4, 2014, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public comment on proposed rules under the BSA to clarify and strengthen customer due diligence requirements for banks, brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities. The proposed rules contain explicit customer due diligence requirements and include a new regulatory requirement to identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exemptions.
Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM to address requests from filers for clarification of certain requirements regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), including requirements with respect to employees, who have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, the foreign financial accounts of their employers.
Cross Border Electronic Transmittal of Funds. On September 27, 2010, FinCEN issued an NPRM in conjunction with the feasibility study prepared pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 concerning the issue of obtaining information about certain cross-border funds transfers and transmittals of funds. As FinCEN has continued to work on developing the system to receive, store, and use this data, FinCEN has drafted a Supplemental NPRM to update the previously published proposed rule and provide additional information to those banks and money transmitters that will become subject to the rule.
Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks Lacking a Federal Functional Regulator. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM to remove the anti-money laundering (AML) program exemption for banks that lack a Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust companies. The proposed rule would prescribe minimum standards for AML programs and would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they are subject to Federal regulation and oversight, are required to establish and implement AML programs.
Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in Securities. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM that proposes amendments to the regulatory definitions of broker or dealer in securities under the BSA regulations. The proposed changes would expand the current scope of the definitions to include funding portals and would require them to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with all of the BSA requirements that are currently applicable to brokers or dealers in securities.
Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations—Registration Requirements of Money Services Businesses. FinCEN is considering issuing an NPRM to amend the requirements for money services businesses with respect to registering with FinCEN.
Changes to the Travel and Recordkeeping Requirements for Funds Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. FinCEN is considering changes to require that more information be collected and maintained by financial institutions on funds transfers and transmittals of funds and to lower the threshold.
Changes to the Currency and Monetary Instrument Report (CMIR) Reporting Requirements. FinCEN will research, obtain, and analyze relevant data to validate the need for changes aimed at updating and improving the CMIR and ancillary reporting requirements. Possible areas of study to be examined could include current trends in cash transportation across international borders, transparency levels of physical transportation of currency, the feasibility of harmonizing data fields with bordering countries, and information derived from FinCEN's experience with Geographic Targeting Orders.
Other Requirements. FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance regulatory efficiency, and as a result of the efforts of an interagency task force currently focusing on improvements to the U.S. regulatory framework for anti-money laundering.
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities, including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities, (2) Administering Government revenue and debt collection, (3) Administering Governmentwide accounting programs, (4) Managing certain Federal investments, (5) Disbursing the majority of Government electronic and check payments, (6) Assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number of improper payments, and (7) Providing administrative and operational support to Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
During fiscal year 2016, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to the following regulatory projects:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Publishing Delinquent Debtor Information. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes
Offset of Tax Refund Payments to Collect Past-Due Support. Currently, there is no time limit to recoup offset amounts that were collected from tax refunds to which the debtor taxpayer was not entitled. An interim rule with request for comments would provide a time limit for such recoupments.
Debt Collection Authorities Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. The Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 changed the statutory requirement for federal agencies to submit delinquent debts to Treasury for purposes of administrative offset from 180 days delinquent to 120 days delinquent. The direct final rule will amend the regulations to conform to that statutory change.
Amendment to Savings Bond Regulations. Fiscal Service plans to amend regulations in 31 CFR parts 315, 353, and 360 to allow consideration of certain state escheat claims when the state cannot show that the owner, coowner, or beneficiary is deceased.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of Tax Policy, promulgates regulations that interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and related tax statutes. The purpose of these regulations is to carry out the tax policy determined by Congress in a fair, impartial, and reasonable manner, taking into account the intent of Congress, the realities of relevant transactions, the need for the Government to administer the rules and monitor compliance, and the overall integrity of the Federal tax system. The goal is to make the regulations practical and as clear and simple as possible.
During fiscal year 2016, the IRS will accord priority to the following regulatory projects:
Tax-Related Affordable Care Act Provisions. On March 23, 2010, the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148) and on March 30, 2010, the President signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) (referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act (ACA)). The ACA's reform of the health insurance system affects individuals, families, employers, health care providers, and health insurance providers. The ACA provides authority for Treasury and the IRS to issue regulations and other guidance to implement tax provisions in the ACA, some of which are already effective and some of which will become effective over the next several years. Since enactment of the ACA, Treasury and the IRS have issued a series of temporary, proposed, and final regulations implementing over a dozen provisions of the ACA, including the premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code, the small-business health coverage tax credit under section 45R of the Code, new requirements for charitable hospitals under section 501(r) of the Code, limits on tax preferences for remuneration provided by certain health insurance providers under section 162(m)(6) of the Code, the employer shared responsibility provisions under section 4980H of the Code, the individual shared responsibility provisions under section 5000A of the Code, insurer and employer reporting under sections 6055 and 6056 of the Code, and several revenue-raising provisions, including fees on branded prescription drugs under section 9008 of the ACA, fees on health insurance providers under section 9010 of the ACA, the tax on indoor tanning services under 5000B of the Code, the net investment income tax under section 1411 of the Code, and the additional Medicare tax under sections 3101 and 3102 of the Code.
In fiscal year 2016, Treasury and the IRS will continue to provide guidance to implement tax provisions of the ACA, including:
• Proposed and final regulations related to numerous aspects of the premium tax credit under section 36B, including the determination of minimum value of eligible-employer-sponsored plans;
• Regulations under section 4980I of the Code relating to the excise tax on high cost employer-provided coverage;
• Regulations on expatriate health plans under the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014 for purposes of sections 36B, 4980I, and 5000A of the Code, and section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act;
• Final regulations regarding issues related to the net investment income tax under section 1411 of the Code.
Interest on Deferred Tax Liability for Contingent Payment Installment Sales. Section 453 of the Code generally allows taxpayers to report the gain from a sale of property in the taxable year or years in which payments are received, rather than in the year of sale. Section 453A of the Code imposes an interest charge on the tax liability that is deferred as a result of reporting the gain when payments are received. The interest charge generally applies to installment obligations that arise from a sale of property using the installment method if the sales price of the property exceeds $150,000, and the face amount of all such installment obligations held by a taxpayer that arose during, and are outstanding as of the close of, a taxable year exceeds $5,000,000. The interest charge provided in section 453A cannot be determined under the terms of the statute if an installment obligation provides for contingent payments. Accordingly, in section 453A(c)(6), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations providing for the application of section 453A in the case of installment sales with contingent payments. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that, when finalized, will provide guidance and reduce uncertainty regarding the application of section 453A to contingent payments.
Rules for Home Construction Contracts. In general, section 460(a) of the Code requires taxpayers to use the percentage-of-completion method (PCM) to account for taxable income from any long-term contract. Under the PCM, income is generally reported in installments as work is performed, and expenses are generally deducted in the taxable year incurred. However, taxpayers with contracts that meet the definition of a “home construction contract,” under section 460(e)(4), are not required to use the PCM for those contracts and may, instead, use an exempt method. Exempt methods include the completed contract method (CCM) and the accrual method. Under the CCM, for example, a taxpayer generally takes into account the entire gross contract price and all incurred allocable contract costs in the taxable year the taxpayer completes the contract. Treasury and the IRS believe that amended rules are needed to reduce uncertainty and controversy, including litigation, regarding when a contract qualifies as a “home construction contract” and when the income and allocable deductions are taken into account under the CCM. On August 4, 2008, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations on the types of
Research Expenditures. Section 41 of the Code provides a credit against taxable income for certain expenses paid or incurred in conducting research activities. To assist in resolving areas of controversy and uncertainty with respect to research expenses, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue final regulations with respect to the definition and credit eligibility of expenditures for internal use software.
Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property. Section 50(d)(5) of the Code provides that, for purposes of the investment credit, rules similar to former section 48(d) (as in effect prior to the enactment of Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)) apply. Former section 48(d)(5)(B) of the Code generally provides that when a lessor of investment credit property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property, the lessee of the property must include an applicable amount in gross income. Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations to address how the section 50(d)(5) income-inclusion rules operate when a partnership is the lessee.
Domestic Production Activities Income. Section 199 of the Code provides a deduction for certain income attributable to domestic production activities. To assist in resolving areas of controversy and uncertainty with respect to the eligibility of income from online computer software, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations regarding the application of section 199 to online computer software.
Consistent Basis Reporting between Estate and Person Acquiring Property from Decedent. On July 31, 2015, the President of the United States signed H.R. 3236, Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (Act) (P.L. 114-41), into law. Section 2004 of the Act added new Code sections 1014(f), 6035, and 6662(k). Section 1014(f) provides rules requiring that the basis of certain property acquired from a decedent be consistent with the estate tax value of the property. Section 6035 requires executors who are required to file a return under section 6018(a) of the Code (and other persons required to file a return under section 6018(b)) after July 31, 2015, to furnish statements with the IRS and certain estate beneficiaries providing information regarding the value of certain property acquired from a decedent. Section 6662(k) provides a penalty for certain recipients of property acquired from an estate required to file a return after July 31, 2015, who do not report a basis that is consistent with the value determined under section 1014(f) when the property is sold (or deemed sold). On August 21, 2015, Notice 2015-57 was issued. This notice delayed the due date for any statements required by section 6035 to February 29, 2016. The IRS is in the process of issuing a form, a schedule, and instructions thereto to facilitate the reporting required by section 6035. It is expected these documents will be available in draft form for taxpayers' use prior to February 29, 2016. Treasury and the IRS will issue proposed regulations providing guidance under sections 1014(f), 6035, and 6662(k) within 18 months of July 31, 2015.
Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The arbitrage investment restrictions on tax-exempt bonds under section 148 of the Code generally limit issuers from investing bond proceeds in higher-yielding investments. On September 16, 2013, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (78 FR 56842) to address selected current issues involving the arbitrage investment restrictions, including guidance on the issue price definition used in the computation of bond yield, working capital financings, grants, investment valuation, modifications, terminations of qualified hedging transactions, and selected other issues. On June 24, 2015, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (80 FR 36301) that revise the 2013 guidance on the issue price definition. Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize the proposed regulations on the arbitrage investment restrictions, including the issue price definition used in the computation of bond yield.
Guidance on the Definition of Political Subdivision for Tax-Exempt, Tax-Credit, and Direct-Pay Bonds. A political subdivision may be a valid issuer of tax-exempt, tax-credit, and direct-pay bonds. Concerns have been raised about what is required for an entity to be a political subdivision. Treasury and the IRS plan to provide additional guidance under section 103 of the Code for determining when an entity is a political subdivision.
Contingent Notional Principal Contract Regulations. Notice 2001-44 (2001-2 CB 77) outlined four possible approaches for recognizing nonperiodic payments made or received on a notional principal contract (NPC) when the contract includes a nonperiodic payment that is contingent in fact or in amount. The Notice solicited further comments and information on the treatment of such payments. After considering the comments received in response to Notice 2001-44, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (69 FR 8886) (the 2004 proposed regulations) that would amend section 1.446-3 and provide additional rules regarding the timing and character of income, deduction, gain, or loss with respect to such nonperiodic payments, including termination payments. On December 7, 2007, Treasury and the IRS released Notice 2008-2 requesting comments and information with respect to transactions frequently referred to as prepaid forward contracts. On May 8, 2015, Treasury and the IRS published temporary and proposed regulations (80 FR 26437) relating to the treatment of nonperiodic payments. Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize the temporary regulations and to re-propose regulations to address issues relating to the timing and character of nonperiodic contingent payments on NPCs, including termination payments and payments on prepaid forward contracts.
Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. A number of tax issues relating to the amount, character, and timing of income, expense, gain, or loss on distressed debt remain unresolved. During fiscal year 2016, Treasury and the IRS plan to address certain of these issues in published guidance.
Definition of Real Property and Qualifying Income for REIT Purposes. A taxpayer must satisfy certain asset and income requirements to qualify as a real estate investment trust (REIT) under section 856 of the Code. REITs have sought to invest in various types of assets that are not directly addressed by the current regulations or other published guidance. On May 14, 2014, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (79 FR 27508) to update and clarify the definition of real property for REIT qualification purposes, including guidance addressing whether a component of a larger item is tested on its own or only as part of the larger item, the scope of the asset to be tested, and whether certain intangible assets qualify as real property. Treasury and the IRS plan to
Corporate Spin-offs and Split-offs. Section 355 and related provisions of the Code allow for the tax-free distribution of stock or securities of a controlled corporation if certain requirements are met. For example, the distributing corporation must distribute a controlling interest in the controlled corporation, and both the distributing and controlled corporations must be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business immediately after the distribution. Treasury and the IRS intend to provide guidance on the qualification of a distribution for tax-free treatment under section 355, including (1) regulations that address when a corporation is treated as engaged in an active trade or business, and (2) final regulations that define predecessor or successor corporation for purposes of the exception to tax-free treatment under section 355(e). Treasury and the IRS also intend to provide guidance relating to the tax treatment of other transactions undertaken as part of a plan that includes a distribution of stock or securities of a controlled corporation, such as changes to the voting power of the controlled corporation's stock in anticipation of the distribution, the issuance of debt of the distributing corporation and retirement of such debt using stock or securities of the controlled corporation, and the transfer of cash or property between a distributing or controlled corporation and its shareholder(s) in connection with the distribution.
Disguised Payments for Services. Section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Code provides that if a partner performs services for a partnership and receives a related direct or indirect allocation and distribution, and the performance of services and the allocation and distribution, when viewed together, are properly characterized as a transaction occurring between the partnership and a partner acting other than in its capacity as a partner, the transfer will be treated as occurring between the partnership and one who is not a partner. Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations on July 23, 2015, to provide guidance on when an arrangement that is purported to be a distributive share under section 704(b) of the Code will be recharacterized as a disguised payment for services under section 707(a)(2)(A). The proposed regulations also provide for modifications to the regulations governing guaranteed payments under section 707(c) to make those regulations consistent with the proposed regulations under section 707(a)(2)(A). Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations during fiscal year 2016.
Transfers of Property to Partnerships with Related Foreign Partners. Section 721(c) of the Code provides authority to issue regulations that prevent the use of a partnership to shift gain to a foreign person. Treasury and the IRS exercised this authority on August 6, 2015, by issuing Notice 2015-54. The notice denies nonrecognition treatment to certain contributions by U.S. persons to partnerships that have foreign partners related to the transferor, unless conditions that preserve U.S. taxing nexus with respect to the built-in gain in the transferred property are met. The notice also addresses the consequences under section 482 of the Code of controlled transactions involving partnerships. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue the regulations described in the notice in this fiscal year.
Country-by-Country Reporting. This fiscal year, pursuant to authority granted under sections 6011, 6012, 6031, and 6038 of the Code, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations requiring reporting of country-by-country information by large U.S. multinational enterprises (MNEs). The regulations will require those MNEs to report income, earnings, taxes paid, and certain economic activity for each country in which the MNE group conducts business, consistent with a template released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as part of its report “Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting.” The information will be used for transfer pricing risk assessment.
Currency. On September 6, 2006, Treasury and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking under section 987 of the Code that proposes rules for translating a section 987 qualified business unit's income or loss into the taxpayer's functional currency for each taxable year, as well as for determining the amount of section 987 currency gain or loss that must be recognized when a section 987 qualified business unit makes a remittance. Treasury and the IRS expect to finalize the proposed regulations in this fiscal year.
Disguised Sale and Allocation of Liabilities. A contribution of property by a partner to a partnership may be recharacterized as a sale under section 707(a)(2)(B) of the Code if the partnership distributes to the contributing partner cash or other property that is, in substance, consideration for the contribution. The allocation of partnership liabilities to the partners under section 752 of the Code may impact the determination of whether a disguised sale has occurred and whether gain is otherwise recognized upon a distribution. Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations on January 30, 2014, to address certain issues that arise in the disguised sale context and other issues regarding the partners' shares of partnership liabilities. Treasury and the IRS are considering comments on the proposed regulations and expect to issue regulations on this issue in fiscal year 2016.
Certain Partnership Distributions Treated as Sales or Exchanges. In 1954, Congress enacted section 751 to prevent the use of a partnership to convert potential ordinary income into capital gain. In 1956, Treasury and the IRS issued regulations implementing section 751 of the Code. The current regulations, however, do not always achieve the purpose of the statute. In 2006, Treasury and the IRS published Notice 2006-14 (2006-1 CB 498) to propose and solicit alternative approaches to section 751 that better achieve the purpose of the statute while providing greater simplicity. Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations following up on Notice 2006-14 on November 3, 2014. These regulations were intended to provide guidance on determining a partner's interest in a partnership's section 751 property and how a partnership recognizes income required by section 751. Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations during fiscal year 2016.
Penalties and Limitation Periods. Congress amended several penalty provisions in the Internal Revenue Code in the past several years. Treasury and the IRS intend to publish a number of guidance projects in fiscal year 2016 addressing these penalty provisions. Specifically, Treasury and the IRS intend to publish final regulations under section 6708 of the Code regarding the penalty for failure to make available upon request a list of advisees that is required to be maintained under section 6112 of the Code. The proposed regulations were published on March 8, 2013. Treasury and the IRS also intend to publish proposed regulations under sections 6662, 6662A, and 6664 of the Code to provide further guidance on the circumstances under which a taxpayer could be subject to the accuracy related penalty on underpayments or reportable transaction understatements and the reasonable cause exception.
Inversion Transactions. On September 22, 2014, Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 2014-52, addressing the application of sections 7874 and 367 of the Code to inversions, as well as certain tax avoidance transactions that are commonly undertaken after an inversion transaction. In this fiscal year, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations implementing the rules described in Notice 2014-52. Also in this fiscal year, and as announced in Notice 2014-52, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue additional guidance to further limit inversion transactions that are contrary to the purposes of section 7874 and the benefits of post-inversion tax avoidance transactions.
Information Reporting for Foreign Accounts of U.S. Persons. In March 2010, chapter 4 (sections 1471 to 1474) was added to subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) (Pub. L. 111-147). Chapter 4 was enacted to address concerns with offshore tax evasion by U.S. citizens and residents and generally requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to enter into an agreement (FFI Agreement) with the IRS to report information regarding financial accounts of U.S. persons and certain foreign entities with significant U.S. ownership. An FFI that does not enter into an FFI Agreement, or that is not otherwise deemed compliant with FATCA, generally will be subject to a withholding tax on the gross amount of certain payments from U.S. sources. Treasury and the IRS have issued proposed, temporary, and final regulations under chapter 4, followed by proposed and temporary regulations modifying certain provisions of the final regulations; proposed and temporary regulations under chapters 3 and 61, and section 3406, to coordinate with those chapter 4 regulations; as well as implementing revenue procedures and other guidance. Treasury and the IRS expect to issue further guidance with respect to FATCA and related provisions in this fiscal year, including finalizing of the aforementioned chapter 3, 4 and 61 regulations and proposed regulations covering the compliance requirement of entities acting as sponsoring entities on behalf of certain foreign entities.
Foreign Tax Credits and Covered Asset Acquisitions. Section 901(m) of the Code limits the availability of foreign tax credits in certain cases in which U.S. tax law and foreign tax law provide different rules for recognizing income and gain. In 2014, Treasury and the IRS issued two notices providing guidance under section 901(m) regarding the treatment of gains and losses from dispositions. In this fiscal year, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations to implement these notices, and also provide substantial additional guidance under section 901(m).
Transfers of Property to Foreign Corporations. Section 367 of the Code provides special rules to address the transfer of property, including intangible property, by U.S. persons to foreign corporations in certain nonrecognition transactions. Under existing temporary regulations issued in 1986, favorable treatment is afforded to the outbound transfer of “foreign goodwill and going concern value,” which has created incentives for taxpayers to categorize transfers of high-value intangible property as such. On September 14, 2015, Treasury and the IRS released proposed regulations that would eliminate that favorable treatment. Treasury and the IRS released on the same day temporary and proposed regulations under section 482 that clarify the coordination of the application of the transfer pricing rules in conjunction with other provisions, including section 367. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the proposed section 367 regulations and the temporary and proposed section 482 regulations in this fiscal year.
Section 501(c) Guidance. After reviewing over 160,000 comments submitted on the proposed regulations under section 501(c)(4) published in fiscal year 2014, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue revised proposed regulations that provide guidance under section 501(c) relating to limitations on political campaign activities of certain tax-exempt organizations.
Guidance on Multiemployer Benefit Suspensions. The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) enacted new rules for multiemployer plans that are projected to have insufficient funds, at some point in the future, to pay the full plan benefits to which individuals will be entitled. MPRA permits the sponsor of such a plan to reduce the pension benefits payable to plan participants and beneficiaries if certain conditions are satisfied, after submitting an application to Treasury for approval and conducting a participant vote. Two sets of proposed and temporary regulations, each set covering different aspects of the legislation, have been published, as well as a revenue procedure concerning the application process. A public hearing on the first set of regulations has been held and over 700 comments received. Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize both sets of regulations in this fiscal year.
ABLE Account guidance. On December 19, 2014, Congress passed The Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014, adding section 529A to the Code to enable states to create qualified ABLE programs under which disabled individuals may establish a tax-advantaged account to pay for disability-related expenses. To be eligible to establish an ABLE account, the individual must have become disabled prior to age 26. As required by the statute, Treasury and the IRS on June 19, 2015, published proposed regulations implementing the provision. States may rely on the proposed regulations for establishing a qualified ABLE program. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the regulations during the 2016 fiscal year, taking into account all comments received.
Guidance Responding to the SEC's Money Market Reform Rule. On July 23, 2014, the SEC adopted a final rule to reduce the systemic risk that money market funds present to the national economy. Later that day, Treasury and the IRS issued simplifying guidance, including proposed regulations (79 FR 43694), designed to ameliorate the tax compliance difficulties that the SEC rule would otherwise pose for certain money market funds and their shareholders. In fiscal year 2016, Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the proposed regulations.
Guidance Relating to Publicly Traded Partnerships. Section 7704 of the Code provides that a partnership whose interests are traded on either an established securities market or on a secondary market (a “publicly traded partnership”) is generally treated as a corporation for Federal tax purposes. However, section 7704(c) permits publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for Federal tax purposes if 90 percent or more of partnership income consists of “qualifying income.” Section 7704(d) provides that income is generally qualifying income if it is passive income or is derived from exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation, or marketing of a mineral or natural resource. Treasury and the IRS issued proposed regulations in 2015 to provide guidance and reduce uncertainty regarding the scope of the natural resource exception. After considering comments on the proposed regulations, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations in fiscal year 2016.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to programs for veterans and their families. VA's major regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three VA components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The primary mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. The primary mission of the Veterans Health Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful Nation to commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.
VA's main regulatory priority is to implement the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which has been amended by Congress in 2015 (Public Laws 114-19 and 114-41). The purpose of the law is to establish a program to furnish hospital care and medical services through non-VA health care providers to veterans who cannot be seen within VA's wait time goals, live far from any VA medical facility, or would face undue hardship travelling to a VA medical facility.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found at:
VA's most recent report on its retrospective review of regulations can be found at:
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is an independent federal agency established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792). The Access Board is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines and standards under various laws to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to and use of buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, information and communication technology, and medical diagnostic equipment. Other federal agencies adopt the accessibility guidelines and standards issued by the Access Board as mandatory requirements for entities under their jurisdiction.
This plan highlights four rulemaking priorities for the Access Board in FY 2016: (A) Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; (B) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; (C) Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards; and (D) Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. The guidelines and standards would enable individuals with disabilities to achieve greater participation in our society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, and would promote our national values of equity, human dignity, and fairness, the benefits of which are difficult to quantify.
The rulemakings are summarized below.
This rulemaking would update in a single document the accessibility standards for electronic and information technology covered by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) (Section 508), and the accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 255). Section 508 requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and each appropriate federal department or agency to revise their procurement policies and directives no later than 6 months after the Access Board's publication of standards. The FAR Council has incorporated the accessibility standards for electronic and information technology in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1). Under section 255, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for issuing implementing regulations and enforcing section 255. The FCC has promulgated enforceable standards (47 CFR parts 6 and 7) implementing section 255 that are consistent with the Access Board's accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and
A.1.
A.2.
Section 508 requires that when developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each federal department or agency must ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that electronic and information technology (regardless of the type of medium) allows individuals with disabilities to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use of the information and data by others without disabilities. Section 255 requires telecommunications manufacturers to ensure that telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment are designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities when it is readily achievable to do so.
A.3.
A.4.
This rulemaking would update the accessibility guidelines for buses, over-the-road buses, and vans covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The accessibility guidelines for other transportation vehicles covered by the ADA, including vehicles operated in fixed guideway systems (
B.1.
B.2.
The Access Board is required by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to establish and maintain guidelines for the accessibility standards adopted by DOT for transportation vehicles acquired or manufactured by entities covered by the ADA. Compliance with the new guidelines is not required until DOT revises its accessibility standards for transportation vehicles acquired or remanufactured by entities covered by the ADA to be consistent with the new guidelines.
B.3.
B.4.
The Access Board plans to issue a final rule establishing accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment used in or in conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' offices, clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals. The standards will contain minimum technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment, including examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, mammography equipment, and other imaging equipment used by health care providers for diagnostic purposes are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Access Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
C.1.
C.2.
Section 510 does not address who is required to comply with the standards. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires health care providers to provide individuals with disabilities full and equal access to their health care services and facilities. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act and enforcing the law. The NPRM discusses DOJ activities related to health care providers and medical diagnostic equipment.
C.3.
C.4.
The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking consolidated this rulemaking with RIN 3014-AA41; accessibility guidelines for shared use paths (which are multi-use paths designed primarily for use by bicyclists and pedestrians—including persons with disabilities—for transportation and recreation purposes). The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Transportation, and other federal agencies are expected to adopt the accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of way and for shared use paths, as enforceable standards in separate rulemakings for the construction and alteration of facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
D.1.
D.2.
D.3.
D.4.
For more than 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked to protect people's health and the environment. By taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies and the most cost-effective, sustainable solutions, EPA and its federal, state, local, and community partners have made important progress to address pollution where people live, work, play, and learn. From cleaning up contaminated waste sites to reducing greenhouse gases, mercury and other air emissions, to investing in water and wastewater treatment, the American people have seen and felt tangible benefits to their health and surroundings. Efforts to reduce air pollution alone have produced hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in the United States.
To keep up this momentum in the coming year, EPA will use regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs, technical and compliance assistance and tools, research and educational initiatives to address the priorities set forth in EPA's Strategic Plan:
• Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
• Protecting America's Waters
• Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
• Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
• Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and Assuring Compliance
All of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to science, law and transparency.
EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use and the communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on some of our most important upcoming regulatory actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a broader spectrum of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
The EPA's success depends on supporting innovation and creativity in both what we do and how we do it. To guide the agency's efforts, the Agency has established several guiding priorities. These priorities are enumerated in the list that follows, along with recent progress and future objectives for each.
The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and warranted. Addressing climate change calls for coordinated national and global efforts to reduce emissions and develop and deploy new, cleaner technologies. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will continue to develop greenhouse gas standards for both mobile and stationary sources.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants. As part of the President's Climate Action Plan, in July 2015, the EPA promulgated the Clean Power Plan final rules setting guidelines for states to follow in reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants, as well as finalizing emission standards for new plants. At the same time, EPA proposed Model Rules, to be finalized in 2016, to help the states develop plans that adequately implement the carbon-reduction guidelines. The July 2015 proposal also included a Federal Plan that will serve as a backstop in cases where states do not adequately implement the guidelines. By 2030 carbon emissions from existing plants are estimated to be reduced by 32% from 2005 levels.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles GHG Emission Standards. In 2011, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation (DOT), EPA issued the first-ever
Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress, millions of Americans still live in areas that exceed one or more of the national air pollution standards. This year's regulatory plan describes efforts to review the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. It also includes a rule to reduce state-to-state atmospheric transport of pollutants that contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Despite considerable progress, many of America's waters remain imperiled. Water quality protection programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies.
Just as today's economy is vastly different from that of 40 years before, EPA's regulatory program is evolving to recognize the progress that has already been made in environmental protection and to incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to provide for an environmentally sustainable future more efficiently and effectively.
Establishing User Fees for the Use of RCRA Manifests. The e-Manifest Final Rule of February 7, 2014 codified certain provisions of the “Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act” (or the Act), which directed the EPA to adopt a regulation that authorized the use of electronic manifests to track hazardous waste shipments nationwide. The Act also instructed the EPA to develop a user-fee-funded e-Manifest system. Since the Act grants broad discretion to the EPA to determine the fees and gives the Agency authority to collect such fees for both electronic manifests and any paper manifests that continue in use, the EPA plans to issue a rulemaking to establish the appropriate electronic and paper manifest fees. The initial fees, to be established in the final rule, are expected to cover the operation and maintenance costs for the system, as well as the costs associated with the development of the system. The EPA plans to also announce in the final rule the date on which the system will be implemented and available to users.
Once the national e-Manifest system becomes available, hazardous waste handlers will be able to complete, sign, transmit, and store electronic manifests through the national IT system, or they can elect to continue tracking the hazardous waste under the paper manifest system. Further, waste handlers that currently submit manifests to the states will no longer be required to do so, unless required by the state, as the EPA will collect both the remaining paper manifest copies and electronic manifests in the national system and will disseminate the manifest data to those States that want it.
CERCLA Section 108(b)—Hard Rock Mining. Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, establishes certain authorities concerning financial responsibility requirements. The Agency has identified classes of facilities within the Hard Rock mining industry as those for which financial responsibility requirements will be first developed. EPA's 108(b) rules will address the degree and duration of risks associated with aspects of hazardous substance management at hard rock mining and mineral processing facilities. These regulations will help ensure that businesses make financial arrangements to address risks from hazardous substances at their sites, and encourage businesses to improve their management of hazardous substances.
Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations under Clean Air Act. On August 1, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13650, entitled
Both EPA and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) had previously issued regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, in response to a number of catastrophic chemical accidents occurring worldwide that had resulted in public and worker fatalities and injuries, environmental damage, and other community impacts. OSHA published the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (29 CFR part 1910.119) in 1992. EPA modeled the RMP regulation after OSHA's PSM standard and published the RMP rule in two stages—a list of regulated substances and threshold quantities in 1994; and the RMP final regulation, containing risk management requirements, in 1996. Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA RMP regulation aim to prevent, or minimize the consequences of, accidental chemical releases to workers and the community.
The EPA is considering modifications to the current RMP regulations in order to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental releases, (2) improve emergency response when those releases occur, and (2) enhance state and local emergency preparedness and response in an effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
One of EPA's highest priorities is to make significant progress in assuring the safety of chemicals. Using sound science as a compass, EPA protects individuals, families, and the environment from potential risks of pesticides and other chemicals. In its implementation of these programs, EPA uses several different statutory authorities, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), as well as collaborative and voluntary activities. In FY 2016, the Agency will continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and highlights the following actions in this Regulatory Plan:
EPA's Existing Chemicals Management Program Under TSCA. As part of EPA's ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of chemicals, EPA plans to take a range of identified regulatory actions for certain chemicals and assess other chemicals to determine if risk reduction action is needed to address potential concerns. After completing risk assessments and identifying concerns related to several specific uses of Trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride, and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), EPA is
Addressing Formaldehyde Used in Composite Wood Products. As directed by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, EPA is developing a final regulation to address formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density fiberboard that is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States.
Lead-based Paint Program. EPA is developing a final rule that would implement several amendments to the EPA lead-based paint program that would improve efficiencies and save resources for those involved. EPA proposed changes in 2014 to the EPA lead-based paint program that would, among other things, amend the renovation, repair and painting rule by removing the requirement for hands-on refresher training for renovators so that they can take the refresher course online and without the need to travel to a training facility for the hands-on portion. EPA also proposed to amend the lead-based paint abatement program by removing the requirement for firms, training providers and individuals to apply for and be certified or accredited in each EPA-administered jurisdiction where they work (
Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations. When enacted in 1978, TSCA banned the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), except when uses would pose no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA is reassessing certain ongoing, authorized uses of PCBs that were established by regulation in 1979, including the use, distribution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric equipment, to determine whether those authorized uses still meet TSCA's “no unreasonable risk” standard. EPA plans to propose the revocation or revision of any PCBs use authorizations included in this reassessment that no longer meet the TSCA standard.
Enhancing Agricultural Worker Protection. As a result of extensive stakeholder engagement and public meetings, EPA is acting to enhance the pesticide worker safety program. EPA plans to issue final amendments to the agricultural worker protection regulation that strengthens protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The revisions will address key environmental justice concerns for a population that may be disproportionately affected by pesticide exposure. The final rule is expected to improve pesticide safety training, use of personal protective equipment, and access to decontamination supplies, and improve agricultural workers' ability to protect themselves and their families from potential secondary exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues. Other changes are intended to bring hazard communications and respirator requirements more in line with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and to clarify current requirements to facilitate program implementation and enforcement.
Strengthening Pesticide Applicator Safety. As part of EPA's effort to enhance the pesticide worker safety program, the Agency also proposed revisions to the existing regulation concerning the certification of applicators of restricted-use pesticides. This proposed rule is intended to ensure that the federal certification standards adequately protect applicators, the public and the environment from potential risks associated with use of restricted use pesticides. The proposed changes are intended to improve the competency of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides, increase protection for noncertified applicators of restricted use pesticides operating under the direct supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide safety training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators, and establish a minimum age requirement for such noncertified applicators. Also, in keeping with EPA's commitment to work more closely with tribal governments to strengthen environmental protection in Indian Country, certain proposed changes are intended to provide more practical options for establishing certification programs in Indian Country.
Evaluating Pesticide Risks to Bees and Other Pollinators. As part of the efforts outlined in the “National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,” EPA is working to update its pesticide data requirements to provide the Agency with data needed to determine the potential exposure and effects of pesticides on bees and other important non-target insect pollinators. Pollinator insects are ecologically and economically important. Recognizing heightened concerns for honey bees due to pollinator declines and that the science has now evolved to where additional toxicity and exposure protocols are available, EPA issued interim study guidance for bees in 2011. EPA developed finalized guidance in 2014 on the conduct of exposure and effect studies used to characterize the potential risk of pesticides to bees. The development and implementation of updates data requirements is intended to provide the information the Agency needs to evaluate whether a proposed or existing use of a pesticide may have an unreasonable adverse effect on these important insects and support pesticide registration decisions under FIFRA.
Today's pollution challenges require a modern approach to compliance, taking advantage of new tools and approaches while strengthening vigorous enforcement of environmental laws. Next Generation Compliance is EPA's integrated strategy to do that, designed to bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA.
EPA's Next Generation Compliance consists of five interconnected components, each designed to improve the effectiveness of our compliance program:
• Design regulations and permits that are easier to implement, with a goal of improved compliance and environmental outcomes.
• Use and promote advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology so that regulated entities, the government, and the public can more easily see pollutant discharges, environmental conditions, and noncompliance.
• Shift toward electronic reporting to help make environmental reporting more accurate, complete, and efficient while helping EPA and co-regulators better manage information, improve effectiveness and transparency.
• Expand transparency by making information more accessible to the public.
• Develop and use innovative enforcement approaches (
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following EPA actions have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Agency's final plan for retrospective review of regulations, or one of its subsequent updates. Some of the entries on this list may not appear in
As described above, EPA continues to review its existing regulations in an effort to achieve its mission in the most efficient means possible. To this end, the Agency is committed to identifying areas in its regulatory program where significant savings or quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens might be achieved, as outlined in Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, while protecting public health and our environment.
By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect small entities can be tracked on EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (
EPA has considered international regulatory cooperation activities as described in Executive Order 13609 and has identified the following international activity that is anticipated to lead to a significant regulation in the following year:
EPA has considered import and export streamlining activities as described in Executive Order 13659 and identified the following rulemaking activity:
Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460,
Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Katherine Sleasman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Undetermined.
Katherine Sleasman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460,
Bryan Groce, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460,
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460,
Ginger Tennant, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Charles Moulis, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460,
• Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost of treatment and loss of productivity.
• Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.
• Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and farmworker families,
• $19.5 million/year for costs to Private Applicators, with an estimated 490,000 impacted and an average cost of $40 per applicator (EA chapter 5 & 5.6).
• $27.4 million/year for costs to Commercial Applicators, with an estimated 414,000 impacted and an average cost of $66 per applicator (EA chapter 5 & 5.6).
• $359,000 for costs to States and other jurisdictions, with an estimated 63 impacted (EA chapter 5). The EPA estimated that there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA estimated that the proposed rule may affect over 800,000 small farms that use pesticides, although about half are unlikely to apply restricted use pesticides. The estimated impact for small entities is less than 0.1% of the annual revenues for the average small entity (EA chapter 5.7). The EPA also estimated that the proposed rule will have a negligible effect on jobs and employment because most private and commercial applicators are self-employed; and the estimated incremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the cost of a part-time employee (EA chapter 5.6).
Kevin Keaney, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506c, Washington, DC 20460,
Robert Courtnage, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, Commission, or agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state & local government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
The first item in this Regulatory Plan is entitled “The Federal Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of Individuals with Disabilities.” The EEOC's regulations implementing section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require Federal agencies and departments to be “model employers” of individuals with disabilities. The Commission issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 15, 2014, (79 FR 27824), and intends to issue a proposed rule to revise the regulations regarding the Federal Government's affirmative employment obligations in 29 CFR part 1614 to include a more detailed explanation of how Federal agencies and departments should “give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities.” Any revisions would be informed by Management Directive 715, and may include goals consistent with Executive Order 13548. Furthermore, any revisions would result in costs only to the Federal Government; would contribute to increasing the employment of individuals with disabilities; and would not affect risks to public health, safety, or the environment.
The second item is entitled “Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process.” In July 2012, the Commission published a final rule containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal sector EEO process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. The Commission issued an ANPRM on February 6, 2015, and intends to issue an NPRM in August 2016, aimed at making the process more fair and efficient.
The third item is entitled “Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act.” This rule would amend the regulations to implement the equal employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction between title I of the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties as part of wellness programs offered through health plans. EEOC also plans to address other aspects of wellness programs that may be subject to the ADA's nondiscrimination provisions. The EEOC issued an NPRM on July 20, 2014, and intends to issue a final rule in February 2016.
The fourth item is entitled “Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.” This rule would amend the regulations on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to address inducements to employees' spouses or other family members who respond to questions about their current or past medical conditions on health risk assessments. It will also correct a typographical error in the rule's discussion of wellness programs and add references to the Affordable Care Act, where appropriate. The EEOC issued an NPRM on October 30, 2015. The EEOC intends to issue a final rule in February 2016.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the Commission.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the EEOC's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov (
Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers. The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the environment.
Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government by supplying Federal purchasers with cost-effective, high-quality products and services from commercial vendors providing workplaces for Federal employees, overseeing the preservation of historic Federal properties, providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. military, and providing State and local governments with law enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster recovery products and services.
GSA's work is done through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP).
FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and services (other than real property) for the Federal Government and leverages the buying power of the Government by consolidating Federal agencies' requirements for common goods and services.
PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United States, providing facilities and workspace solutions to more than 60 Federal agencies PBS' activities fall into two broad areas. The first is space acquisition through both leases and construction. PBS translates general needs into specific requirements, marshals the necessary resources, and delivers the space necessary to meet the respective missions of its Federal clients. The second area is management of space. This involves making decisions on maintenance, servicing tenants, and ultimately, deciding when and how to dispose of a property at the end of its useful life.
OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real property, travel and transportation, information technology, regulatory information, and use of Federal advisory committees. OGP also helps direct how all Federal supplies and services are acquired as well as GSA's own acquisition programs.
OGP's policy regulations are described below:
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and relocation policy for all title 5 Executive agency employees. The FTR is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory requirements and executive branch policies for travel by Federal civilian employees and others authorized to travel at Government expense.
Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for aircraft, transportation, personal property, real property, and mail management. The FMR is the successor regulation to the Federal Property Management Regulation (FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory policies originally found in the FPMR.
GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and services from its business partners are covered by the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which implements and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners (
On behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Government-wide Policy, in conjunction with Department of Defense (DOD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), write and sign the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the rule book for all federal agency procurements that governs the billions of contract dollars expended by the Government every year.
In fiscal year 2016, GSA plans to amend the FTR by:
• Revising Chapter 301, Temporary Duty Travel, ensuring accountability and transparency. This revision will ensure agencies' travel for missions is efficient and effective, reduces costs, promotes sustainability, and incorporates industry best practices at the lowest logical travel cost.
• Revising Chapter 302, Relocation Allowances for miscellaneous items based on administrative changes, case decisions, and agency review.
In fiscal year 2016, GSA plans to amend the FMR by:
• Revising rules regarding management of Federal real property;
• Revising rules regarding management of Federal personal property.
• Revising rules under management of mail and transportation.
GSA plans, to update the GSAR to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering contractual relationships. Current GSAR initiatives are focused on—
• Providing consistency with the FAR;
• Eliminating coverage that duplicates the FAR or creates inconsistencies within the GSAR;
• Rewriting sections that have become irrelevant because of changes in technology or business processes or that place unnecessary administrative burdens on contractors and the Government;
• Streamlining or simplifying the regulation;
• Rolling up coverage from the services and regions/zones that should be in the GSAR, specifically targeting PBS's construction contracting policies and the GSA Schedules Program;
• Streamlining the evaluation process for contracts containing commercial supplier agreements; and
• Reviewing pricing practices for the GSA Schedules Program.
GSAR rules are relevant to small businesses that do or wish to do business with the Federal Government. GSA is reviewing regulations that govern the GSA Schedules program; approximately 17,300 businesses, most of whom are small, have GSA Schedule contracts.
GSAR Case 2013-G504, Transactional Data Reporting and GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedules Administrative Changes are both of interest to GSA proposed a rule to capture transactional data, and in return eliminate the requirement for contractors to track prices offered to the customer or class of customers designated for purposes of the Price Reductions Clause. Among other benefits, GSA anticipates this rule to result in a net burden reduction to GSA Schedule contractors and reduce the need for costly, duplicative contract vehicles, thereby reducing the barrier to entry for small businesses in the Federal marketplace. GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedules Administrative Changes updates the GSA Schedules program to implement long standing Schedules clauses that had previously never received public comment.
Additionally, GSAR case 2015-G512 Unenforceable Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms will propose a way to streamline the evaluation process to award contracts containing commercial supplier agreements. By streamlining this process, GSA anticipates reducing barriers to entry for small businesses.
There are currently no regulations which promote open Government and disclosure.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (July, 2015), the GSA retrospective review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at
Dated: September 18, 2015.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aim is to increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe that contains it, and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's basic organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (a Federally Funded Research and Development Center), and several component installations which report to Center Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, and control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters located in Washington, DC.
NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2014 Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to “Drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth.” The FY 2014 Strategic Plan, (available at
•
•
•
In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, “international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting” public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in Executive Order 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency review of the U.S. export control system, with the goal of strengthening national security by focusing efforts on controlling the most critical products and technologies and by enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors. While NASA does not have any regulations implementing this initiative, the Agency does serve on the interagency review team in a consultative and supportive role for this process, along with the Department of Defense, the Department of State and the Department of Commerce.
In addition, NASA serves as one of the signatories to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1, contains procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. section 1302 and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly prepared, issued, and maintained by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under their several statutory authorities. NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. NASA finalized the entire NFS rewrite initiative this year to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations, clarify regulatory language, and simplify processes. More than 1.9 million hours of information collection requirements (ICRs) were identified as no longer required and duplicative of active FAR-level ICRs. Specifically, OMB control numbers 2700-0085, 2700-0086, and 2700-0087 were discontinued as part of the NFS rewrite initiative. The Agency will continue to analyze the NFS to implement procurement-related statutes, Executive orders, NASA initiatives, and Federal procurement policy that streamline current processes and procedures.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13579 “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (Jul. 11, 2011), NASA regulations associated with its retrospective review and analysis are described in the Agency's final retrospective plan of existing regulations. NASA's final plan and updates can be found at
1. Discrimination on Basis of Handicap [14 CFR 1251]—NASA is finalizing its section 504 regulations to incorporate changes to the definition of disability required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008, include an affirmative statement of the longstanding requirement for reasonable accommodations in programs, services, and activities, include a definition of direct threat and a provision describing the parameters of the existing direct threat defense to a claim of discrimination, clarify the existing obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services to qualified individuals with disabilities, update the methods of communication that recipients may use to inform program beneficiaries of their obligation to comply with section 504 to reflect changes in technology, adopt updated accessibility standards applicable to the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities, establish time periods for compliance with these updated accessibility standards, provide NASA with access to recipient data and records to determine compliance with section 504, and make administrative updates to correct titles. These amendments will reduce administrative burdens imposed on the public.
2. NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting [48 CFR 1852.233]—NASA is finalizing its regulations to revise a current clause related to safety and health measures and mishaps reporting by narrowing the application of the clause, resulting in a decrease in the reporting burden on contractors while reinforcing the measures contractors at NASA facilities must take to protect the safety of their workers, NASA employees, the public, and high value assets These amendments will streamline and reduce reporting requirements imposed on the public.
3. NASA FAR Supplement: Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace and Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program [48 CFR 1823, 1846, and 1852]—NASA amended its regulations to remove requirements related to the discontinued Space Flight Mission Critical System Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) and to revise requirements related to contractor drug and alcohol testing. These amendments eliminated contractors' costs and burden for implementing PRP [80 FR 60552].
4. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards [2 CFR 1800]—NASA amended is regulations to incorporate requirements for the use of the Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information Systems, in accordance with OMB's uniform guidance. These amendments are expected to reduce duplication and risk associated with administering grants and cooperative agreements; the chance of errors, and allows for the timely closeout of grants and cooperative agreements [80 FR 54701].
5. NASA Far Supplement: Denied Access to NASA Facilities [48 CFR 1852.242-72]—NASA amended its regulations to remove “Observance of Legal Holidays” and added in its place a new clause entitled, “Denied Access to NASA Facilities,” because the October 2013 Government shutdown revealed a need for NASA to be specific and differentiate between conditions when contractor employees may be denied access to their work location in a NASA facility. These amendments standardize procedures and provide greater clarity to contractors on conditions when contractors may be denied access to NASA facilities due to a Government shutdown [80 FR 52642].
6. NASA FAR Supplement #3—NASA amended its regulations to eliminate unnecessary regulatory text, streamline overly-burdensome regulations, clarify language, and simplify processes where possible [80 FR 36719].
7. Space Flight [14 CFR 1214]—NASA is proposing to amend its regulations to remove language that refers to the retired Space Shuttle Program and to clarify language for other ongoing programs that requires some of this rule to remain in place.
8. NASA Protective Services [14 CFR 1204]—NASA is amending its traffic enforcement regulation to correct citations, and to clarify the regulation's scope, policy, responsibilities, procedures, and violation descriptions.
9. Processing of Monetary Claims [14 CFR 1261]—NASA is amending its regulations to change the amount to collect installment payments from $20,000 to $1000 to align with Title II, Claims of the United States Government, section 3711(a)(2) Collection and Compromise. This regulation will also be amended to include the rules for the use of contractors for debt collection and new provisions allowing for debts to be transferred to the Treasury Department for direct collection, as prescribed by Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990.
10. Duty Free Entry of Space Articles [14 CFR 1217]—NASA amended its regulations to remove language that refers to the Space Shuttle Program and to clarify language for other ongoing programs that require some of this rule to remain in place [80 FR 45864].
11. Removal of Obsolete Regulations [14 CFR 1216]—NASA amended its regulations to remove regulatory text that is covered in internal NASA policies and requirements [80 FR 30352].
12. Administrative Updates [14 CFR 1207, 1245, 1262, 1263, 1264, & 1266] NASA amended its regulations to make administrative updates to correct spelling citations [80 FR 42028].
13. NASA Capitalization Threshold [48 CFR 1845 and 1852]—NASA issued an interim rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement to increase the NASA capitalization threshold from $100,000 to $500,000. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that capital asset thresholds should be periodically reevaluated to ensure their continuing relevance and that they are established at a level that would not omit a significant amount of assets from the balance sheet. Accordingly, the NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducted a review of the current NASA capital asset threshold of $100,000 and determined an increase in the capital asset threshold to $500,000 was warranted. NASA expects this rule to benefit NASA contractors by reducing some of the administrative burden associated with financial reporting of NASA property in the custody of contractors. Of the 568 NASA contracts awarded in 2014, approximately 114 contracts (20%) that required reporting of Government property were awarded to small businesses. [80 FR 51957].
Abstracts for other regulations that will be amended or repealed between October 2015 and October 2016 are reported in the fall 2015 edition of Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulation actions.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. These regulations include records management, information services, access to and use of NARA holdings, and grant programs. For example, records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern the proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues Government-wide regulations concerning information security classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA has three regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016, which are included in The Regulatory Plan. The first are revisions to the Federal records management regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B (phases I and II). The proposed changes include changes resulting from the 2011 Presidential Memorandum on Managing Government Records, the 2012 Managing Government Records Directive (M-12-18), and Public Law 113-187, The Presidential and Federal Records Acts Amendments of 2014. The proposed rules will affect Federal agencies' records management programs relating to proper records creation and maintenance, adequate documentation, electronic recordkeeping requirements, use of the Electronic Records Archive (ERA) for records transfer, and records disposition. Phase I (RIN 3095-AB74) includes changes to provisions in 36 CFR parts 1223 (Managing Essential Records), 1224 (Records Disposition Programs), 1227 (General Records Schedules), 1229 (Emergency Authorization to Destroy Records), 1232 (Transfer of Records to Records Storage Facilities), 1233 (Transfer Use and Disposition of Records in a NARA Federal Records Center), 1235 (Transfer of Records to the National Archives of the United States), 1236 (Electronic records management), 1237 (Audiovisual Cartographic and Related Records Management), and 1239 (Program Assistance and Inspections). NARA has substantially revamped these provisions and they are out for public comment this fall. Phase II (RIN 3095-AB85) is underway, with the remaining parts of subchapter B currently undergoing revision.
The second priority is a new regulation on Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a component of NARA, is promulgating this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13556. The Order establishes an open and uniform program for managing information requiring safeguarding or dissemination controls. This rule sets forth guidance to agencies on safeguarding, disseminating, marking, and decontrolling CUI, self-inspection and oversight requirements, and other facets of the program.
And the third priority is a new regulation on the Office of Government Information Services functions and procedures. The Open Government Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524), amended the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), and created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS is proposing regulations, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify, elaborate upon, and specify the procedures in place for Federal agencies and public requesters who seek OGIS's services within the FOIA system. The regulations will specify the means by which OGIS carries out its role as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman—by working with Federal agencies to provide an alternative to litigation in resolving FOIA disputes, by independently reviewing agency FOIA policies,
OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor a world-class workforce for the American people.
• We manage Federal job announcement postings at USAJOBS.gov, and set policy on governmentwide hiring procedures.
• We conduct background investigations for prospective employees and security clearances across government, with hundreds of thousands of cases each year.
• We uphold and defend the merit systems in Federal civil service, making sure that the Federal workforce uses fair practices in all aspects of personnel management.
• We manage pension benefits for retired Federal employees and their families. We also administer health and other insurance programs for Federal employees and retirees.
• We provide training and development programs and other management tools for Federal employees and agencies.
• In many cases, we take the lead in developing, testing and implementing new governmentwide policies that relate to personnel issues.
Altogether, we work to make the Federal government America's model employer for the 21st century.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (July, 2015), the OPM retrospective review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the pensions of more than 40 million people in more than 25,000 private-sector defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
To carry out these functions, PBGC issues regulations on such matters as termination, payment of premiums, reporting and disclosure, and assessment and collection of employer liability. The Corporation is committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely regulations to help affected parties.
PBGC continues to follow a regulatory approach that does not inadvertently discourage the maintenance of existing defined benefit plans or the establishment of new plans. Thus, in developing new regulations and reviewing existing regulations, the focus, to the extent possible, is to avoid placing burdens on plans, employers, and participants, and to ease and simplify employer compliance. PBGC particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor defined benefit plans.
PBGC develops its regulations in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), and PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review (Regulatory Review Plan).
PBGC administers two insurance programs for privately defined benefit plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA):
•
•
At the end of FY 2014, PBGC had a deficit of about $62 billion in its
PBGC's regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
• To encourage voluntary private pension plans.
• To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits.
• To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
Pensions and the statutory framework in which they are maintained and terminate are complex. Despite this complexity, PBGC is committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely regulations and other guidance that do not impose undue burdens that could impede maintenance or establishment of defined benefit plans.
Through its regulations and other guidance, PBGC strives to minimize burdens on plans, plan sponsors, and plan participants; simplify filing; provide relief for small businesses and plans; and assist plans in complying with applicable requirements. To enhance policy-making through collaboration, PBGC also plans to expand opportunities for public participation in rulemaking (see Open Government and Public Participation below).
PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities are to simplify its regulations and reduce burden, enhance retirement security, and to implement statutory changes, particularly the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006).
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. The regulatory actions associated with these RINs, as well as other regulatory review projects, are described below.
DC to DB plan rollovers. In November 2015, PBGC published a final rule
PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small businesses in making policy. A large percentage of the plans insured by PBGC are small or maintained by small employers. PBGC has issued or is considering several proposed rules that will focus on small businesses:
PBGC is doing more to encourage public participation in the regulatory process. For example, PBGC's current efforts to reduce regulatory burden are in substantial part a response to public comments. The regulatory projects discussed above highlight PBGC's customer-focused efforts to reduce regulatory burden.
PBGC's Regulatory Review Plan sets forth ways to expand opportunities for public participation in the regulatory process. For example, in June 2013, PBGC held its first-ever regulatory hearing on the reportable events proposed rule, so that the agency would have a better understanding of the needs and concerns of plan administrators and plan sponsors. Discussion at that hearing informed PBGC's final rule. PBGC's 2015 Request for Information
PBGC plans to provide additional means for public involvement, including on-line town hall meetings, social media, and continuing opportunity for public comment on PBGC's Web site.
PBGC also invites comments on the Regulatory Review Plan on an on-going basis as we engage in the review process. Comments should be sent to
PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its regulations.
The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in economic recovery of communities after disasters. In carrying out this mission, SBA strives to improve the economic environment for small businesses, including those in areas that have significantly higher unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's averages and those in traditionally underserved markets. The Agency serves as a guarantor of small business loans, and also provides management and technical assistance to existing or potential small business owners through various grants, cooperative agreements or contracts. This access to capital and other assistance provides a crucial foundation for those starting a new business, or growing an existing business and ultimately helps to create new jobs. SBA also provides direct financial assistance to homeowners, renters, and small business to help in the rebuilding of communities in the aftermath of a disaster.
SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, in particular the Agency's core constituents—small businesses. SBA's regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review;” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review;” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan, innovation, and procurement programs.
SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation in its rulemaking process. To that end, SBA routinely solicits comments on its regulations. Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other public events as part of its regulatory process.
The SBA's FY 2014 to FY 2018 strategic plan serves as the foundation for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the next twelve months. This Strategic Plan provides a framework for strengthening, streamlining, and simplifying SBA's programs while leveraging collaborative relationships with other agencies and the private sector to maximize the tools small business owners and entrepreneurs need to drive American innovation and strengthen the economy. The plan sets out three strategic goals: (1) Growing businesses and creating jobs; (2) serving as the voice for small business; and (3) building an SBA that meets the needs of today's and tomorrow's small businesses. In order to
• Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive lending network;
• Ensuring Federal contracting goals are met or exceeded by collaborating across the Federal Government to expand opportunities for small businesses and strengthen the integrity of the Federal contracting data and certification process;
• Strengthening SBA's relevance to high growth entrepreneurs and small businesses to more effectively drive innovation and job creation; and
• Mitigating risk and improving program oversight.
The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and plan are intended to facilitate achievement of these goals and objectives. Over the next twelve months, SBA's highest regulatory priorities will be to implement the following regulations and program guidance: (1) Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee Program (RIN: 3245-AG73); (2) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program; Impact SBICs (RIN: 3245-AG66); (3) Small Business Mentor-Protégé Programs (RIN: 3245-AG24), (4) Small Business Government Contracting and National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments (RIN: 3245-AG58), and (5) Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive (RIN: 3245-AG64).
This rule will propose to amend SBA's regulations to redefine how the agency determines affiliation as it relates to eligibility for its Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program and the business loan programs, consisting of the 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs and the Business Disaster Loan Programs. SBA has reviewed the applicable regulations and concluded that, in order to expand the reach of these programs and increase accessibility to the benefits the programs offer for small businesses, one of the Agency's priorities will be to simplify guidelines for determining affiliation for program eligibility based on size. The proposed amendments would reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and SBA participating lenders, streamline delivery of program assistance, and lower the costs related to program participation. As part of its process to develop this rule, SBA solicited and received public feedback in support of simplifying the rules and aligning the requirements with normal commercial industry practices.
This rule proposes to establish a regulatory structure for the SBIC program's Impact Investment Fund initiative, which is currently implemented via policy memorandum. The goal of the Impact Investment Fund is to support small business investment strategies that maximize financial returns while also yielding enhanced social, environmental, or economic impacts as part of the SBIC program's overall effort to supplement the flow of private equity and long-term loan funds to small businesses in underserved communities and the innovative sectors whose capital needs are not being met. The proposed rule supports the development of America's growing impact investing industry by making available a new type of SBIC license called an Impact SBIC to investment funds meeting the SBIC program's licensing qualifications, provides application and examination fee considerations to incentivize impact investing participation, establishes leverage eligibility requirements, and establishes reporting and performance measures for licensed funds to maintain Impact SBIC designation. The proposed rule would require an Impact SBIC to invest at least 50% of its total invested capital in one or both categories of impact investment: (a) SBA-identified impact investments, which are investments in small businesses located in geographic areas and sectors of national priority designated by SBA, such as Low- and Moderate- Income Zones (LMI); and/or (b) fund-identified impact investments, which are investments that meet an SBIC's own definition, subject to SBA's approval, of an “Impact Investment,” such as small businesses operating in the clean energy, education or healthcare sectors.
SBA currently has a mentor-protégé program for the 8(a) Business Development Program that is intended to enhance the capabilities of the protégé and to improve its ability to successfully compete for Federal contracts. The Small Business Jobs Act authorized SBA to use this model to establish similar mentor-protégé programs for the Service Disabled Veteran Owned, HUBZone and Women-Owned Small Business Programs. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 further authorized SBA to extend the availability of mentor-protégé programs to all small business concerns. During the next twelve months, one of SBA's priorities will be to issue final regulations establishing these mentor-protégé programs. The various types of assistance that a mentor will be expected to provide to a protégé include technical and/or management assistance; financial assistance in the form of equity investment and/or loans; subcontracts and/or assistance in performing prime contracts with the Government in the form of joint venture arrangements. The regulatory action would enhance the ability of small business concerns to obtain larger prime contracts that would be normally out of the reach of these businesses. The small business mentor-protégé programs would allow all small businesses to tap into the expertise and capital of larger firms, which in turn would help small business concerns become more competitive in the Federal procurement arena.
SBA proposed amending its regulations to implement provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which pertain to performance requirements applicable to small business and socioeconomic program set aside contracts and small business subcontracting. SBA also proposed to amend SBA's regulations concerning the nonmanufacturer rule and affiliation rules. Further, SBA proposed to allow a joint venture to qualify as small for any government procurement as long as each partner to the joint venture qualifies individually as small.
This proposal seeks to revise the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Policy Directives. Specifically, SBA proposes to combine the two directives into one integrated Directive, clarify the Phase III preference afforded to SBIR and STTR small business awardees, add definitions relating to data rights, clarify the benchmarks for progress towards commercialization, and update language regarding the calculations of extramural Research/Research & Development budgets used to fund the SBIR/STTR programs.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), SBA developed a plan for the retrospective review of its regulations. Since that date SBA has issued several updates to this plan to reflect the Agency's ongoing efforts in carrying out this executive order. The final agency plan and review updates, which can be found at
SBA is proposing clarification of the issues relating to both programs concerning data rights, Phase III awards, and miscellaneous issues such as benchmarks to commercialization achievement and the calculation of extramural budget. SBA is also proposing to amend both the SBIR and STTR policy directives by combining the two directives into one because the general structure of both programs is the same.
SBA's surety bond and business loan programs are dedicated to providing solutions to qualified small businesses unable to secure conventional financing or surety bonding through traditional channels. Receipt of this form of SBA assistance includes program qualifications surrounding the size of a small business applicant. The proposed regulations set forth affiliation principles more in keeping with the capital structures presented in the surety and business loan programs.
SBA has reviewed its regulations with regard to the business loan programs and Surety Bond Guarantee program and is proposing a number of amendments and revisions to accomplish this goal. The loan programs authorized by the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 631
In these proposed rules, SBA proffers that the size a of small business applicant with diffused ownership or operating under franchise or license agreements should be determined eligible without aggregating minority ownership interests, common investments or by reference to an affiliate's relationship to any franchisor or licensor.
Section 1696 requires guidance on the statutory limitations on subcontracting to be issued, pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking within 180 days (July 2, 2013) after enactment of the NDAA.
We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits, and our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or local governments, except for the States' Disability Determination Services. We fully fund the Disability Determination Services in advance or by way of reimbursement for necessary costs in making disability determinations.
The ten entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of major importance to the Agency. We describe the individual initiatives more fully in the attached plan.
Since the continued improvement of the disability program is of vital concern to us, we include initiatives in the plan addressing disability-related issues. These initiatives include one proposed and four final rules that update the medical listings used to determine disability. The revisions reflect our adjudicative experience and advances in medical knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment.
There are five proposed rules that will propose to:
• Require claimants to submit or inform us about all evidence known to them that relates to their disability claim,
• Clarify our guidelines regarding how we will evaluate work experience for persons characterized as “Illiterate,” and clarify our guidelines on how we evaluate previous work experience for persons who are “Illiterate”,
• Remove the expiration date from our rule authorizing State agency disability examiners to make fully favorable determinations without the approval of a State agency medical or psychological consultant in claims we consider under our quick disability determinations and compassionate allowances processes,
• Revise our rules regarding returning evidence at the Appeals Council level to give the Appeals Council discretion in returning additional evidence that it receives when it determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, and
• Create a new system of records that exempts certain records from disclosure. This new system tracks anti-harassment claims made by our employees.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in our final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
We expect adjudicators to support the change in the framework of the text because it makes the guidance in the introductory text and listings easier to access and understand.
Nancy Miller, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist. Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Dan O'Brien, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Employment Support Programs, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
The administrative effect of this regulation is negligible (
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
We use the education category in our medical-vocational guidelines in appendix 2 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations (Appendix 2). The medical-vocational guidelines direct or provide a framework for disability determinations and decisions at the final step in our sequential evaluation process. We propose clarifying that we consider a person Illiterate when he or she is unable to read or write in any language.
Under this revised definition of Illiterate, we propose clarifying our guidelines on how we evaluate previous work experience for persons who are Illiterate when we decide whether a person is disabled. These proposed clarifications ensure our guidelines clearly reflect our longstanding policy in 404.1565(a) and 416.965(a). If a person has skilled or semiskilled work experience, but cannot use those skills in other work (
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Janet Bendann, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was established to codify uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly, pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Reauthorization Act, under the statutory authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Statutory authorities to issue and revise the FAR have been delegated to the procurement executives in Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Specific FAR cases that the FAR Council plans to address in Fiscal Year 2016 include:
Contracts under the Small Business Administration 8(a) Program—This case clarifies FAR subpart 19.8, “Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program).” (FAR Case 2012-022)
Clarification of Requirement for Justifications for 8(a) Sole-Source Contracts—This case clarifies the requirement for a justification for 8(a) sole-source contracts, in response to GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, entitled Federal Contracting: Slow Start to Implementation of Justifications for 8(a) Sole-Source Contracts (GAO-13-118 dated December 2012). (FAR Case 2013-018)
Set-Asides under Multiple Award Contracts—This case implements statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and is aimed at providing agencies with clarifying guidance on how to use multiple-award contracts as a tool to increase Federal contracting opportunities for small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-002)
Small Business Subcontracting Improvements—This case implements statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 aimed at protecting small business subcontractors and increasing subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-003)
Payment of Subcontractors—This case implements section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Final Rule 78 FR 42391, Small Business Subcontracting. The rule requires prime contractors of contracts requiring a subcontracting plan to notify the contracting officer in writing if the prime contractor pays a reduced price to a subcontractor or if payment is more than 90 days past due. A contracting officer will then use his or her best judgment in determining whether the late or reduced payment was justified and if not the contracting officer will record the identity of a prime contractor with a history of unjustified untimely payments to subcontractors in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or any successor system. (FAR Case 2014-004)
Consolidation and Bundling of Contract Requirements—This case implements statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which created a definition for contract consolidation and limited its use by agencies until certain steps are taken to identify and minimize the negative impact to small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-015)
Sole Source Contracts to Women-Owned Small Businesses—This case implements statutory requirements from the NDAA for FY 2015, which provides for sole source authority under the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program. The new authority is expected to increase WOSB participation in the Federal marketplace. (FAR Case 2015-032)
Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces—This rule implements Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, seeks to increase efficiency in the work performed by Federal contractors by ensuring that they understand and comply with labor laws designed to
Establishing a Minimum wage for Contractors—This rule implements Executive Order 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, which requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to include a clause in new solicitations and resultant contracts, specifying, as a condition of payment, that the minimum wage to be paid to workers, in the performance of the contract or any subcontract there under, shall be at least $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2015. (FAR Case 2015-003)
Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity—This rule implements Executive Order 13672, dated July 21, 2014, and Department of Labor (DOL) regulations at 41 CFR 60, published December 9, 2014. The Executive Order and the DOL regulations provide for a uniform policy in Federal Government procurement by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (FAR case 2015-013)
Combating Trafficking in Persons—Definition of “Recruitment Fees”—This case considers a new definition for the term “recruitment fees” at the request of the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) for Combating Trafficking in Persons. (FAR Case 2015-017)
High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons—This case facilitates implementation of the President's Climate Action Plan with regard to high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons. (FAR Case 2014-026)
Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation—This case creates an annual representation within the System for Award Management (SAM) for contractors to indicate if and where they publicly disclose GHG emissions and GHG reduction goals or targets. This information will help the Government assess supplier GHG management practices and assist agencies in developing strategies to engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions as directed in section 15 of Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, dated March 19, 2015. (FAR Case 2015-024)
Sustainable Acquisition—This case implements E.O. 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, which supersedes E.O.s 13423 and 13514. (FAR Case 2015-033)
Privacy Training—This case creates a FAR clause to require contractors that (1) need access to a system of records, (2) handle personally identifiable information, or (3) design, develop, maintain, or operate a system of records on behalf of the Government, have their personnel complete privacy training. This addition complies with subsections (e) (agency requirements) and (m) (Government contractors) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). (FAR Case 2010-013)
Organizational Conflicts of Interest and Unequal Access to Information—This case implements section 841 of the NDAA for FY 2009 (Pub. L. 110-147). Section 841 requires consideration of how to address the current needs of the acquisition community with regard to Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Separately addresses issues regarding unequal access to information. (FAR Case 2011-001)
Basic Safeguarding of Contractor Information Systems—This case amends the FAR to implement procedures for safeguarding contractor information systems that contain information provided by or generated for the Government. The purpose of these safeguards is to provide the Government with the necessary assurance that contractors are taking basic security measures on their information systems containing Government information. (FAR Case 2011-020)
Contractor Use of Information—This case addresses contractor access to controlled unclassified information. (FAR Case 2014-021)
Information on Corporate Contractor Performance and Integrity—This case implements section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). Section 852 requires that FAPIIS include, to the extent practicable, information on any parent, subsidiary, or successor entities to the corporation. (FAR Case 2013-020)
Prohibition on Contracting with Corporations with Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction.—This case implements multiple sections of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. (Pub. L. 113-235) to prohibit using any of the funds appropriated by the Act to enter into a contract with any corporation with a delinquent Federal tax liability or a felony conviction. (FAR case 2015-011)
Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy—This case implements sections 841-843, subtitle E (Never Contract with the Enemy), title VIII, of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291), enacted 12/19/2014. Section 841 prohibits providing funds to the enemy. Section 842 provides additional access to records. Section 843 provides definitions. (FAR Case 2015-014)
Provisions and Clauses for Acquisitions of Commercial Items and Acquisitions That Do Not Exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold—This case implements a new approach to the prescription and flowdown for provisions and clauses applicable to the acquisition of commercial items or acquisitions that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Each clause prescription and each clause flowdown for commercial items is specified within the prescription/clause itself, without having to cross-check another clause or list. The rule supports the use of automated contract writing systems and reduced necessary FAR maintenance when clauses are updated. (FAR Case 2015-004)
Retention Period—This case updates the file retention periods identified at FAR subpart 4.805, Government Contract Files, to conform with the retention periods in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 1.1, Financial Management and Reporting Records, published on September 12, 2014. (FAR Case 2015-009)
Simplified Acquisition Threshold for Contracts in Support of Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operation—This case implements 41 U.S.C. 153 by increasing the simplified acquisition threshold for contracts to be awarded and performed, or purchases to be made, outside the United States in support of a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation. (FAR Case 2015-020)
Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic Communication—This case removes the terms “telegraph,” “telegram,” and related regulations from the FAR, in accordance with OFPP Memorandum dated December 4, 2014, which directed removal or revision of outdated regulations. (FAR Case 2015-035)
Reverse Auction Guidance—This case Implements OFPP memorandum, “Effective Use of Reverse Auctions.”The memorandum provides guidance on the usage of reverse auctions, and was issued in response to recommendations within GAO report (Reverse Auctions: Guidance is Needed to Maximize Competition and Achieve Cost Savings, GAO-14-108). (FAR Case 2015-038)
Applicability of the Senior Executive Compensation Benchmark. Proposes retroactive implementation of section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), which extends the limitation on allowability of compensation for certain contractor personnel from senior executives to all DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard contractor employees. (FAR Case 2012-025)
Limitation on Allowable Government Contractor Compensation Costs—This case implements Public Law 113-67, which limits costs of compensation of contractor and subcontractor employees. (FAR Case 2014-012)
Strategic Sourcing Documentation—This case implements section 836 of the FY15 NDAA. Section 836 requires that when purchasing services and supplies that are offered under the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative but the Initiative in not used, the contract file shall include an analysis of comparative value, including price and nonprice factors, between the services and supplies offered under such Initiative and services and supplies offered under the source or sources used for the purchase. (FAR Case 2015-015)
Prohibition on Reimbursement for Congressional Investigations and Inquiries—This case implements section 857 of the NDAA for FY15, which amends 10 U.S.C. 2324(e)(1). Section 857 disallows costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is the subject 10 U.S.C. 2324(k)(2). (FAR Case 2015-016)
Determination of Fair and Reasonable Prices on Orders under Multiple-Award Contracts—This case clarifies the responsibilities for ordering activity contracting officers to determine fair and reasonable prices when using Federal Supply Schedules. (FAR Case 2015-021)
Federal Supply Schedule Order Level Materials—This case provides clarification of the authority to acquire order-level materials when placing a task order or establishing a blanket purchase agreement against a Federal Supply Schedule contract. (FAR Case 2015-023)
Uniform Use of Line Items—This case establishes a requirement for use of a standardized uniform line item numbering structure in Federal procurement. (FAR Case 2013-014)
Past Performance Evaluation Requirements—This case updates FAR subpart 42.15 to identify “regulatory compliance” as a separate evaluation factor in the Contractor Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS) and require agencies use past performance information in the Past Performance Information three years for construction and architect-engineer contracts. (FAR Case 2015-027)
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) was established in 2010 as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. Among these are the consumer financial protection authorities that transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on the designated transfer date, July 21, 2011. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws.
As provided in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the purpose of the CFPB is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial laws consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that such markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. The CFPB is authorized to exercise its authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services:
(1) Consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions;
(2) Consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination;
(3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens;
(4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and
(5) Markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The CFPB's regulatory priorities for the period from November 1, 2015, to October 31, 2016, include continuing rulemaking activities to address critical issues in various markets for consumer financial products and services and implementing Dodd-Frank Act mortgage protections. The Bureau has also made changes to its long-term agenda, which are discussed below.
The Bureau is working on a number of rulemakings to address important consumer protection issues in a wide variety of markets for consumer financial products and services.
For example, the Bureau is beginning a rulemaking process to follow up on a report it issued to Congress in March 2015, concerning the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial products or services. The report, which was required by the Dodd-Frank Act, expanded on preliminary results of arbitration research that had been released by the Bureau in December 2013. Following release of the report, the CFPB analyzed whether rules governing pre-dispute arbitration agreements are warranted, and, if so, what types of rules would be appropriate. The Bureau has preliminarily determined that it should proceed with a rulemaking regarding pre-dispute arbitration agreements. To begin the rulemaking process, the Bureau intends to convene a panel in fall 2015, under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to consult with small businesses that may be affected by the policy proposals under consideration.
The Bureau is also analyzing consumer protection concerns associated with the use of payday, auto title, and similar lending products in anticipation of the release of a notice of proposed rulemaking to address acts or practices in connection with these
Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on overdraft programs on checking accounts. The CFPB issued a white paper in June 2013, and a report in July 2014, based on supervisory data from several large banks that highlighted a number of possible consumer protection concerns, including how consumers opt in to overdraft coverage for ATM and one-time debit card transactions, overdraft coverage limits, transaction posting order practices, overdraft and insufficient funds fee structures, and involuntary account closures. The CFPB is continuing to engage in additional research and has begun consumer testing initiatives relating to the opt-in process.
In addition, the Bureau also engaged in policy analysis and research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on debt collection activities, which are the single largest source of complaints to the federal government of any industry. Building on the Bureau's November 2013, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the CFPB is in the process of analyzing the results of a survey to obtain information from consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau is also undertaking consumer testing initiatives to determine what information would be useful for consumers to have about debt collection and their debts and how that information should be provided to them.
The Bureau is also working on a final rule to create a comprehensive set of protections for general purpose reloadable cards and other similar products, which are increasingly being used by consumers in place of traditional checking accounts or credit cards. The Bureau issued a proposed rule in November 2014, seeking to expressly bring prepaid products within the ambit of Regulation E (which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act) as prepaid accounts and to create new provisions specific to such accounts. The proposal would also amend Regulation E and Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act) to regulate prepaid accounts with overdraft services or credit features.
The Bureau is also continuing rulemaking activities that will further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority. The Bureau expects that its next larger participant rulemaking will focus on the markets for consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans for purposes of supervision. The Bureau is also considering whether rules to require registration of these or other non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
The Bureau is also continuing to develop research on other critical markets to help implement statutory directives and to assess whether regulation of other consumer financial products and services may be warranted. For example, the Bureau is starting its work to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau will focus on outreach and research to develop its understanding of the players, products, and practices in the small business lending market and of the potential ways to implement section 1071. The CFPB then expects to begin developing proposed regulations concerning the data to be collected and appropriate procedures, information safeguards, and privacy protections for information-gathering under this section.
The Bureau is also continuing its efforts to implement critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act to guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades. The Bureau has already issued regulations implementing Dodd-Frank Act protections for mortgage originations and servicing and integrating various federal mortgage disclosures as discussed further below.
The Bureau is also working to implement Dodd-Frank amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which augment existing data reporting requirements regarding housing-related loans and applications for such loans. In addition to obtaining data that is critical to the purposes of HMDA—which include providing the public and public officials with information that can be used to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, assisting public officials in the distribution of public sector investments, and assisting in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes—the Bureau views this rulemaking as an opportunity to streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting, in furtherance of its mission under the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden. The Bureau published a proposed HMDA rule in the
Another major effort of the Bureau is the implementation of its final rule combining several federal mortgage disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The integrated forms are the cornerstone of the Bureau's broader “Know Before You Owe” mortgage initiative. The rule, in most cases, requires that two forms, the Loan Estimate and the Closing Disclosure, replace four different federal disclosures. These new forms will help consumers better understand their
The final rule combining the federal mortgage disclosures under TILA and RESPA was issued in November 2013, and takes effect October 3, 2015. The Bureau has worked intensively to support implementation efforts, including consumer education initiatives. To facilitate implementation, the Bureau has released a small entity compliance guide, a guide to forms, a readiness guide, sample forms, and additional materials. The Bureau has conducted six free, publicly available webinars to answer common questions and hosted an additional webinar targeted at housing counselors. In January 2015, after extensive outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau adopted two minor modifications and technical amendments to the rule to smooth compliance for industry.
The Bureau also continues to work in support of the full implementation of, and to facilitate compliance with, various mortgage-related final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2013, to strengthen consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of mortgages. These rules, implementing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, were all effective by January 2014. The Bureau is working diligently to monitor the market and continues to make clarifications and adjustments to the rules where warranted. For example, in order to promote access to credit, the Bureau engaged in further research to assess the impact of certain provisions implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act that modify general requirements for small creditors that operate predominantly in “rural or underserved” areas and published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The Bureau also published a proposal in the
Further, the Bureau continues to participate in a series of interagency rulemakings to implement various Dodd-Frank Act amendments to TILA and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) relating to mortgage appraisals. In April 2015, in conjunction with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration Board, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Bureau issued a final rule adopting certain minimum requirements for appraisal management companies. These joint agency efforts are continuing with further efforts to implement amendments to FIRREA concerning required quality control standards for the use of automated valuation models.
The Bureau has also updated its long-term agenda to reflect its expectations beyond fiscal year 2016. As noted in these items, the Bureau intends to explore potential rulemakings to address important issues related to consumer reporting and student loan servicing. The Bureau has also eliminated a listing for certain mortgage-related rulemakings inherited from other agencies pursuant to the transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2011. The Bureau remains interested in the subjects of these rulemakings but anticipates that it would develop new proposals rather than finalizing notices that are at least five years old.
With regard to consumer reporting, the Bureau continues to monitor the credit reporting market through its supervisory, enforcement, and research efforts, and to consider prior research, including a white paper the Bureau published on the largest consumer reporting agencies in December 2012, and reports on credit report accuracy produced by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses to issues identified, including potential additional rules or amendments to existing rules governing consumer reporting. Potential topics for consideration might include the accuracy of credit reports, including the processes for resolving consumer disputes, or other issues.
Further, in May 2015, the CFPB issued a request for information seeking comment from the public regarding student loan servicing practices, including those related to payment processing, servicing transfers, complaint resolution, co-signer release, and procedures regarding alternative repayment and refinancing options. In September 2015, the CFPB released a report regarding student loan servicing practices, based, in part, on comments submitted in response to the request for information. The CFPB will also continue to monitor the student loan servicing market for trends and developments. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including potential rulemaking. Possible topics for consideration might include specific acts or practices and consumer disclosures.
The Bureau has continued work to consider opportunities to modernize and streamline regulations that it inherited from other agencies pursuant to a transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. This work includes implementing the consolidation and streamlining of federal mortgage disclosure forms discussed earlier, and exploring opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden as part of the HMDA rulemaking. While the Bureau considers the modernizing and streamlining effort to be important, it has determined that aspects of the inherited proposals to amend Regulation Z have become stale with the passage of several years since their issuance. At this point, the Bureau believes that any rulemaking it may undertake in the areas the proposals addressed would be best achieved
The Bureau also has begun planning to conduct assessments of significant rules it has adopted, pursuant to section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. That section requires the Bureau to conduct such assessments to address, among other relevant factors, the effectiveness of the rules in meeting the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and the specific goals of the rules assessed, to publish a report of each assessment not later than five years after the effective date of the subject rule, and to invite public comment on recommendations for modifying, expanding, or eliminating the subject rule before publishing each report. The Bureau will provide further information about its expectations for the lookback process as its planning continues.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury associated with consumer products. To achieve this goal, among other things, the CPSC:
• Develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where required by statute;
• obtains repair, replacement, or refunds for defective products that present a substantial product hazard;
• develops information and education campaigns about the safety of consumer products;
• participates in the development or revision of voluntary product safety standards; and
• follows statutory mandates.
Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8 require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following criteria when deciding the level of priority for any particular project:
• Frequency and severity of injury;
• causality of injury;
• chronic illness and future injuries;
• costs and benefits of Commission action;
• unforeseen nature of the risk;
• vulnerability of the population at risk;
• probability of exposure to the hazard; and
• additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.
Significant Regulatory Actions:
Currently, the Commission is considering one rule that would constitute a “significant regulatory action” under the definition of that term in Executive Order 12866:
Under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (“FFA”), the Commission may issue a flammability standard or other regulation for a product of interior furnishing if the Commission determines that such a standard is needed to adequately protect the public against unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant property damage. The Commission's regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one of which could be the development of a mandatory standard requiring that upholstered furniture meet mandatory requirements specified in the standard.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), with protecting American consumers from “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-misleading information about products and services, provides consumers the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the marketplace through two different but complementary approaches. Unfair or deceptive acts or practices injure both consumers and honest competitors alike and undermine competitive markets. Through its consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in the marketplace. At the same time, for consumers to have a choice of products and services at competitive prices and quality, the marketplace must be free from anticompetitive business practices. Thus, the second part of the Commission's basic mission—antitrust enforcement—is to prohibit anticompetitive mergers or other anticompetitive business practices without unduly interfering with the legitimate activities of businesses. These two complementary missions make the Commission unique insofar as it is the Nation's only Federal agency to be given this combination of statutory authority to protect consumers.
The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the FTC Act and other statutes. In addition, the Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and enforcing regulations under a number of statutes. The Commission is responsible for enforcing 16 trade regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act. Other examples include the regulations enforced pursuant to credit, financial and marketing practice statutes
The Commission protects consumers through a variety of tools, including both regulatory and non-regulatory
As detailed below, protecting consumer privacy, preventing and mitigating identity theft, containing the rising costs of health care and prescription drugs, fostering competition and innovation in cutting-edge, high-tech industries, challenging deceptive advertising and marketing, and safeguarding the interests of potentially vulnerable consumers, such as children and the financially distressed, continue to be at the forefront of the Commission's consumer protection and competition programs. By subject area, the FTC discusses some of the major workshops, reports,
Data security is an important focus of the Commission's privacy work. Since 2002, the FTC has brought 53 cases against companies that have engaged in unfair or deceptive practices that the Commission alleged put consumers' personal data at unreasonable risk. The agency has been actively monitoring the mobile marketplace to safeguard data privacy and security. For instance, Credit Karma, Inc., and Fandango, LLC, settled charges that they misrepresented the security of their mobile apps and put the sensitive personal information of millions of people at risk.
The “Start With Security” initiative helps businesses protect consumers' information through new guidance for businesses that draw on the lessons learned in the more than 50 data security cases brought by the FTC through the years, as well as a series of conferences to be held across the country aimed at small- and medium-sized businesses in various industries, with the first event held on September 9, 2015, in San Francisco, CA, and the second one to be held in Austin, TX, on November 5, 2015. Aimed at start-ups and developers, the September event brought together experts to provide information on security by design, common security vulnerabilities, strategies for secure development, and vulnerability response. The Austin event will provide similar practical tips and guidance for the Austin start-up community.
The business guidance, titled “Start with Security A Guide for Business,” was published mid-2015 and lays out ten key steps to effective data security, drawn from the alleged facts in the FTC's data security cases.
On January 27, 2015, the staff of the Commission released a report titled “Internet of Things Privacy & Security in a Connected World”
The Commission is actively litigating to protect children and their parents when children use mobile apps that appeal to children and offer virtual goods for sale. On August 1, 2014, the FTC filed a court complaint alleging that Amazon.com, Inc. billed parents and other account holders for millions of dollars in unauthorized in-app charges incurred by children.
In June 2015, the Commission initiated a series of Debt Collection Dialogue hearings, with the first one in Buffalo co-hosted by the New York Attorney General's Office. The Buffalo event drew nearly 200 participants, most of them collection industry members. The second hearing was held on September 29, 2015, in Dallas, Texas. On November 18, 2015, the Commission plans to co-host the Atlanta event with the Georgia Attorney General's Office. At each event, the FTC and its state and federal law enforcement partners will discuss recent enforcement actions, consumer complaints about debt collection practices, and compliance issues. The speakers will welcome questions and comments from collection industry members and others who attend.
Tax identity theft is increasingly a growing share of identity theft-related complaints. In January 2015, the FTC sponsored a Tax Identity Theft Awareness Week including, hosting a webinar, bilingual Twitter chats, and several Tax Identity Theft Awareness Week events across the country to raise awareness about tax identity theft and give people tips about how to respond to it. The FTC's Tax Identity Theft Awareness Week Web site
(f) Ensuring Consumers Benefit From New Technologies While Also Protecting Them.
•
•
The FTC now has two active pay-for-delay litigations underway in federal courts. Both of them involve the blockbuster male testosterone replacement drug Androgel, including the
Another key Commission enforcement priority is preventing mergers that would give health care providers leverage to raise rates charged to commercial health care plans for vital services. The Commission obtained a significant victory for consumers when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the combination of the two largest providers of adult primary care physician services in the Nampa, Idaho area would substantially reduce competition.
For instance, the FTC is currently using its authority under Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act to explore the impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities. Last year, the FTC received authority from the Office of Management and Budget to issue compulsory process orders to PAEs and other industry participants to develop a better understanding of PAE business models. The FTC currently is analyzing data received from respondents, and plans to issue a report summarizing its findings.
The FTC also continues to advocate for global interoperability and strong privacy enforcement. The agency has brought at least 39 enforcement actionsto support the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework (“Safe Harbor”) for cross-border data transfers. In light of the European Court of Justice's October 6, 2015 decision regarding Safe Harbor, the Commission will continue to work together with the U.S. Department of Commerce and European authorities to develop effective solutions that protect consumer privacy with respect to cross-border data transfers. The agency also continues to strengthen enforcement ties with foreign privacy counterparts. The FTC pursues these relationships both bilaterally, this year for example signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Dutch data protection authority, and multilaterally, through networks like the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) and GPEN Alert.
The FTC strives to promote sound approaches to common issues by building relationships with sister agencies around the world. With over 130 jurisdictions enforcing competition laws, the FTC continues to lead efforts to develop strong mutual enforcement cooperation and sound policy internationally. For example, the FTC co-leads the International Competition Network's (ICN) Agency Effectiveness Working Group and its investigative process initiative. This project resulted in the ICN's adoption of Guidance on Investigative Process, which is the most comprehensive agency-led effort to date to articulate guidance on investigative principles and practices that promote procedural fairness and effective enforcement in the areas of transparency, meaningful engagement with parties, and confidentiality in antitrust investigations, The FTC also was a key drafter of the recently adopted Recommendation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on international cooperation in competition investigations.
In fiscal year 2014, the Commission coordinated with antitrust agencies in 37 investigations, and it is on target to surpass that number in 2015. This included transactions such as Medtronic's acquisition of Covidien, in which we worked with antitrust agencies in multiple jurisdictions, including Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, and Mexico, to reach consistent results.
Congress has enacted laws requiring the Commission to undertake rulemakings and studies. This section discusses required rules and studies. The final actions section below describes actions taken on the required rulemakings and studies since the 2014 Regulatory Plan was published.
In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Under the Commission's program, rules are reviewed on a 10-year schedule. For many rules, this has resulted in more frequent reviews than are generally required by section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in that it provides the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic effects, not just a “significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 610.
As part of its continuing 10-year review plan, the Commission examines the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the least cost to business. In a number of instances, the Commission has determined that existing rules and guides were no longer necessary or in the public interest. Most of the matters currently under review pertain to consumer protection and are intended to ensure that consumers receive the information necessary to evaluate competing products and make informed purchasing decisions. Pursuant to this program, the Commission has rescinded 37 rules and guides promulgated under the FTC's general authority and updated dozens of others since the early 1990s.
In light of Executive Orders 13563 and 13579, the FTC continues to take a fresh look at its long-standing regulatory review process. The Commission is taking a number of steps to ease burdens on business and promote transparency in its regulatory review program:
• The Commission recently issued a revised 10-year review schedule (see next paragraph below) and is accelerating the review of a number of rules and guides in response to recent changes in technology and the marketplace. The Commission is currently reviewing more than 15 of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction.
• The Commission continues to request and review public comments on the effectiveness of its regulatory review program and suggestions for its improvement.
• The FTC maintains a Web page at
In addition, the Commission's 10-year periodic review schedule includes initiating reviews for the following rules
(1) Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315,
(2) Ophthalmic Practice Rules, 16 CFR 456, and
(3) Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses Rule (Holder in Due Course Rule) 16 CFR 433, and during 2016:
(4) Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR 314,
(5) CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316,
(6) Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation, 16 CFR 460, and
(7) Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records, 16 CFR 682.
As set out below under
The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and guides, which are discussed below.
Since the publication of the 2014 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close other rulemaking proceedings.
In both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed regulatory actions are consistent with the President's priorities. The actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while minimizing the regulatory burdens on businesses. The Commission will continue working toward these goals. The Commission's 10-year review program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their significant existing regulations. 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). In addition, the final rules issued by the Commission continue to be consistent with the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles, Executive Order 12866, section 1(a), which directs agencies to promulgate only such regulations as are,
The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and benefits of proposed actions and possible alternative actions and to receive the broadest practicable array of comment from affected consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly promoting the ability of “private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.” Executive Order 12866, section 1.
The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a “significant regulatory action” under the definition in Executive Order 12866.
(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 governments 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; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.
In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing “a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” IGRA established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, amongst other things, as a means of generating tribal revenue.
At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised by tribal governments. In addition, the Federal government maintains a government-to-government relationship with the tribes—a responsibility of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful consultation with tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to promote agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign in order to fully promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed to working with tribes to ensure the integrity of the industry by exercising its regulatory responsibilities
As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive Order 13579 was issued on July 11, 2011. The NIGC, however, recognizes the importance of Executive Order 13579 and its regulatory review is being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13579, to identify those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required by Executive Order 13175, the Commission has been conducting government-to-government consultations with tribes regarding each regulation's relevancy, consistency in application, and limitations or barriers to implementation, based on the tribes' experiences. The consultation process is also intended to result in the identification of areas for improvement and needed amendments, if any, new regulations, and the possible repeal of outdated regulations.
The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with the review:
More specifically, the NIGC is currently considering promulgating new regulations in the following areas: (i) Amendments to its regulatory definitions to conform to the newly promulgated rules; (ii) the removal, revision, or suspension of the existing minimum internal control standards (MICS) in part 542; (iii) updates or revisions to its management contract regulations to address the current state of the industry; (iv) the review and revision of the minimum internal control standards for Class II gaming updates; (v) updates and revisions to its Self-Regulation of Class II Gaming regulations; (vi) regulation that would provide a preference to qualified Indian-owned businesses when purchasing goods or services for the Commission at a fair market price; (vii) finalized revisions to the background investigation and licensing regulations in order to streamline the process for submitting information and to distinguish the requirements for temporary and permanent licenses (viii) revisions to the minimum technical standards for gaming equipment used with the play of Class II games and, (ix) revisions to the existing Privacy Act Procedures in part 515 as a means to streamline internal processes.
The NIGC anticipates that the ongoing consultations with tribes will continue to play an important role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.
Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. The NRC's regulatory mission is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. As part of its mission, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants and fuel-cycle plants; the safeguarding of nuclear materials from theft and sabotage; the safe transport, storage, and disposal of radioactive materials and wastes; the decommissioning and safe release for other uses of licensed facilities that are no longer in operation; and the medical, industrial, and research applications of nuclear material. In addition, the NRC licenses the import and export of radioactive materials. As part of its regulatory process, the NRC routinely conducts comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits of contemplated regulations. The NRC has developed internal procedures and programs to ensure that it imposes only necessary requirements on its licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether the requirements imposed are still necessary.
The NRC's Regulatory Plan contains a statement of: (1) The major rules that the NRC expects to publish in final form in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and FY 2016; (2) the other significant rulemakings that the NRC expects to publish in final form in FY 2015; and (3) the other significant rulemakings that the NRC expects to publish in final form in FY 2016 and beyond. Major rules include rules that are likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Other significant rulemakings include rules that are not economically significant but are considered important by the agency. For each major rule and other significant rulemaking, the NRC is including a citation, if available, to an applicable
The NRC will have published one major rule in final form by the end of FY 2015.
The NRC anticipates publishing one major rule in final form in FY 2016.
The NRC will have published nine other significant rulemakings in final form in FY 2015.
The NRC has proposed one other significant rulemaking in FY 2015.
The other significant rulemakings that the NRC anticipates publishing in FY 2016 and beyond are listed below. Some of these regulatory priorities are a result of recommendations from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force. In 2011, the NRC established this task force to examine regulatory requirements, programs, processes, and implementation based on information from the Fukushima Dai-ichi site in Japan, following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami (
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of significant and not significant regulations being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with Executive Order 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For this edition of the USDA regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online regulatory agenda and in part II of the
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
References in boldface appear in The Regulatory Plan in part II of this issue of the
C. William Hench, Senior Cattle Health Specialist, Cattle Health Center, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B-3E20, Fort Collins, CO 80526,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Various Secretary's Rules and Regulations (years of 1911, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, 1950, and 1963) and Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.15 provide direction for the use of NFS lands for mineral development activities associated with the exercise of reserved mineral rights. These existing rules for reserved minerals development activities also include requirements for protection of NFS resources.
Currently, there are no formal regulations governing the use of NFS lands for activities associated with the exercise of outstanding mineral rights underlying those lands. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 2508, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to apply specified terms and conditions to surface-disturbing activities related to development of oil and gas on certain lands with outstanding mineral rights on the Allegheny National Forest, and promulgate regulations implementing that section.
The Forest Service initiated rulemaking for the use of NFS lands for development activities associated with both reserved and outstanding minerals rights with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's fall 2015 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016.
Commerce hereby publishes its fall 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
In addition, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. These operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office, issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's fall 2015 regulatory agenda follows.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this semiannual agenda of regulatory documents, including those that are procurement-related, for public information and comments under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda incorporates the objective and criteria, when applicable, of the regulatory reform program under the Executive Order and other regulatory guidance. It contains DoD regulations initiated by DoD components that may have economic and environmental impact on State, local, or tribal interests under the criteria of Executive Order 12866. Although most DoD regulations listed in the agenda are of limited public impact, their nature may be of public interest and, therefore, are published to provide notice of rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in the internal DoD rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on June 18, 2015, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the spring of 2016. In addition to this agenda, DoD components also publish rulemakings pertaining to their specific statutory administration requirements as required.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F25, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-697-2714.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571-372-0489, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F25, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571-372-6115, or write to Defense Acquisition Regulations Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 703-428-6173, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDR-C, Casey Building, Room 102, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315-3860, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Mr. Chip Smith, telephone 703-693-3644, or write to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 2E569, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact CDR Noreen Hagerty-Ford, telephone 703-614-7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703-614-8500, or write to Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated in each DoD component report.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is composed of the regulatory status reports, including procurement-related regulatory status reports, from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Departments of the Army and Navy. Included also is the regulatory status report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose civil works functions fall under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866 and involve water resource projects and regulation of activities in waters of the United States.
In addition, this agenda, although published under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866, continues to be the DoD single-source reporting vehicle, which identifies regulations that are currently applicable under the various regulatory reform programs in progress. Therefore, DoD components will identify those rules which come under the criteria of the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Those DoD regulations, which are directly applicable under these statutes, will be identified in the agenda and their action status indicated. Generally, the regulatory status reports in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these
Although not a regulatory agency, DoD will continue to participate in regulatory initiatives designed to reduce economic costs and unnecessary burdens upon the public. Comments and recommendations are invited on the rules reported and should be addressed to the DoD component representatives identified in the regulatory status reports. Although sensitive to the needs of the public, as well as regulatory reform, DoD reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibility permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed with its overall defense-oriented mission. The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563 recognizes the importance of maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the executive branch. DoD's retrospective review plan is intended to identify certain significant rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive and can be accessed at:
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of Federal regulatory and deregulatory actions. The agenda is issued under the authority of section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The purpose of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about regulatory actions we plan to take.
Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the agency contact listed for the regulations. Other questions or comments on this agenda should be directed to LaTanya Cannady, Program Specialist, or Hilary Malawer, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Division of Regulatory Services, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Education, Room 6C128, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-2241; telephone: (202) 401-9676 (LaTanya Cannady) or (202) 401-6148 (Hilary Malawer). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, requires the Department of Education (ED) to publish, at a time and in a manner specified by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602(a), requires ED to publish, in October and April of each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda.
The regulatory flexibility agenda may be combined with any other agenda that satisfies the statutory requirements (5 U.S.C. 605(a)). In compliance with the Executive order and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Secretary publishes this agenda.
For each set of regulations listed, the agenda provides the title of the document, the type of document, a citation to any rulemaking or other action taken since publication of the most recent agenda, and planned dates of future rulemaking. In addition, the agenda provides the following information:
• An abstract that includes a description of the problem to be addressed, any principal alternatives being considered, and potential costs and benefits of the action.
• An indication of whether the planned action is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
• A reference to where a reader can find the current regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
• A citation of legal authority.
• The name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at ED from whom a reader can obtain additional information regarding the planned action.
In accordance with ED's Principles for Regulating listed in its regulatory plan (78 FR 1361, published January 8, 2013), ED is committed to regulations that improve the quality and equality of services to its customers. ED will regulate only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, least burdensome way possible.
Interested members of the public are invited to comment on any of the items listed in this agenda that they believe are not consistent with the Principles for Regulating. Members of the public are also invited to comment on any uncompleted actions in this agenda that ED plans to review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) to determine their economic impact on small entities.
This publication does not impose any binding obligation on ED with regard to any specific item in the agenda. ED may elect not to pursue any of the regulatory actions listed here, and regulatory action in addition to the items listed is not precluded. Dates of future regulatory actions are subject to revision in subsequent agendas.
The entire Unified Agenda is published electronically and is available online at
Department of Energy.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), including its Regulatory Plan (Plan), pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by statute, including amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's entire Fall 2015 Agenda can be accessed online by going to:
Publication in the
• Ceiling Fan Light Kits
• Ceiling Fans
• Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves
• Light-Emitting Diode Lamps
• Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines
The Plan appears in both the online Agenda and the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Madhura C. Valverde, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the federal government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda reflects this complex mission through planned rulemakings structured to implement the Department's six arcs for implementation of its strategic plan: Leaving the Department Stronger; Keeping People Healthy and Safe; Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to Affordable Quality Care; Leading in Science and Innovation; Delivering High Quality Care and Spending Our Health Care Dollars More Wisely; and Ensuring the Building Blocks for Success at Every Stage of Life.
HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory Web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Sarah Harding, Health Insurance Specialist, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-01-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244,
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the General Counsel, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sep. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sep. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of all current and projected rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on June 18, 2015, at 80 FR 35030.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
As part of the Unified Agenda, Federal agencies are also required to prepare a Regulatory Plan of the most important significant regulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to issue in proposed or final form in that fiscal year. As in past years, for fall editions of the Unified Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, are printed in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 49 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 53 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 61 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 62 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 65 in part II of this issue of the
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Denise Daniels, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security
John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In accordance with section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, HUD is publishing its agenda of regulations already issued or that are expected to be issued during the next several months. The agenda also includes rules currently in effect that are under review and describes those regulations that may affect small entities, as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with advance information about pending regulatory activities.
Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-3055. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at 800-877-8339 (Federal Relay Service).
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735), as amended, requires each department or agency to prepare semiannually an agenda of: (1) Regulations that the department or agency has issued or expects to issue, and; (2) rules currently in effect that are under departmental or agency review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires each department or agency to publish semiannually a regulatory agenda of rules expected to be proposed or promulgated that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities,” meaning small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act permit incorporation of the agenda required by these two authorities with any other prescribed agenda.
HUD's regulatory agenda combines the information required by Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As in the past, HUD's complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Department is subject to certain rulemaking requirements set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531
HUD has attempted to list in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently omitted, or may have arisen too late to be included in the published agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Also, where a date is provided for the next rulemaking action, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to act on or by the date shown.
In some cases, HUD has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that HUD will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows HUD to assess the subject matter further and determine whether rulemaking in that area is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate. If that determination is made, such rules will be included in a succeeding semiannual agenda.
In addition, for a few rules that have been published as proposed or interim rules and which, therefore, require further rulemaking, HUD has identified the timing of the next action stage as “undetermined.” These are rules that are still under review by HUD for which a determination and timing of the next action stage have not yet been made.
Since the purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about the Department's future regulatory actions, HUD invites all interested members of the public to comment on the rules listed in the agenda.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between fall 2015 and fall 2016. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You should direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. You should direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-3181.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Scott Covington, Refuge Energy Program Coordinator, Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:NWRS, Falls Church, VA 22041-3808,
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its fall 2015 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-8059.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 71 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 74 in part II of this issue of the
Office of the Secretary, Labor
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Kathleen Franks, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
In addition, the Department's Regulatory Plan, also a subset of the Department's regulatory agenda, is being published in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 77 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 78 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 79 in part II of this issue of the
All of the other regulations implementing WIOA were published by the Departments of Labor and Education in separate NPRMs. The Departments are analyzing the comments received and developing a final rule.
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 84 in part II of this issue of the
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
Supplementary Information:
Improvement of our regulations is a prime goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT). Our regulations should be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. They should not be issued without appropriate involvement of the public; once issued, they should be periodically reviewed and revised, as needed, to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they originally were designed. To view additional information about the Department's regulatory activities online, go to
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
The Agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by OST.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The Agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. We have classified rules as significant in the Agenda if they are, essentially, very beneficial, controversial, or of substantial public interest under our Regulatory Policies and Procedures. All DOT significant rulemaking documents are subject to review by the Secretary of Transportation. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided a rule is subject to its review under Executive Order 12866, we have also classified it as significant in the Agenda.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated August 13, 2015, requires the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
Our agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D. In response to Executive Order 13563 “Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules,” in 2011 we prepared a retrospective review plan providing more detail on the process we use to conduct reviews of existing rules, including changes in response to Executive Order 13563. Any updates related to our retrospective plan and review results can be found at
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the Internet at
(Name of contact person), (Name of the DOT agency), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. (For the Federal Aviation Administration, substitute the following address: Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591).
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
All comments via the Internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to permit its use. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department has added other elements to its review plan. The Department has decided to improve its plan by adding special oversight processes within the Department, encouraging effective and timely reviews, including providing additional guidance on particular problems that warrant review, and expanding opportunities for public participation. These new actions are in addition to the other steps described in this appendix.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or particular analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
The FAA has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most DOT modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and
• Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highway is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145 of title 23, expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for the construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: An updated rule was promulgated implementing section 1302 of MAP-21 by adding the new authorities for early acquisition of property to part 710, clarifying the Federal-aid eligibility of a broad range of real property interests that constitute less than full fee ownership, streamlining program requirements, clarifying the Federal-State partnership, and carrying out a comprehensive update of part 710.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: An updated rule was promulgated to conform with MAP-21, and proposes additional substantive and nonsubstantive changes to streamline or clarify this part.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEIOSNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: An updated rule was promulgated to incorporate amendments made to the program by section 1112 of MAP-21 and to incorporate necessary changes to align with the safety performance management rulemaking.
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. This administrative rule allows FMCSA to collect one-time nominal registration and insurance fees for commercial motor carriers. The fees do not place any significant cost burden on small entities.
• General: FMCSA will integrate plain language techniques to the extent possible as it rewrites various rulemakings to address Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and MAP-21 provisions that authorize the replacement of three current identification and registration systems with a single online Federal “Unified Registration System (URS).” The authority to set and collect fees is found in 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49 U.S.C. 13908.
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. This administrative rule describes the operating authority application process and does not require extensive time to complete. The rule also allows commercial motor vehicle (CMV) carriers to protest a rejected application for operating authority. Because no entity is obliged to file a protest; and the filing process requires minimal time to complete, we find that the rule does not impose any significant costs upon a significant number of small entities.
• General: FMCSA will integrate plain language techniques as it rewrites these rulemakings and will integrate this part into 49 CFR part 360 consistent with the Federal “Unified Registration System.” This part is still relevant as it provides carriers with the authority to operate.
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. These rules require motor carriers to designate court-related process agents for every State in which they operate to enable the claimant to adjudicate a claim in the jurisdiction where the claim arises. Many small motor carriers contract with organizations which provide a nationwide blanket authority at a reasonable cost.
• General: The process-agent designation is imposed by statute: 49 U.S.C. 13303 and 13304; consequently FMCSA has no discretion regarding costs associated with this rulemaking. FMCSA will integrate plain language techniques as it rewrites these rulemakings and will integrate this part into 49 CFR part 360 consistent with the Federal “Unified Registration System.”
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. The issuance of “Certificates of Registration” to Mexican motor carriers of property desiring to operate in the United States commercial border zones applies only to Mexican carriers and therefore has no cost impact to U.S. small entities.
• General: This rule remains important since the North American Free Trade Agreement has not been fully implemented. The FMCSA will integrate plain language techniques as it rewrites these rulemakings and will integrate this part into 49 CFR part 360, consistent with SAFETEA-LU and the proposed Federal “Unified Registration System.”
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. This regulation is administrative in nature and was transferred to the Department of Transportation upon the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) of 1995. This rule prohibits certain forms of discrimination and smoking on interstate motor carriers of passengers, ticketing requirements, and excess baggage requirements regarding commercial travel on Interstate motor carriers of passengers. These rules promote standard business practices that a prudent person should undertake in the proper management of transportation operations consistent with existing laws to include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Civil Rights Amendment. There are no substantial additive costs borne by small entities as a result of this rule.
• General: These regulations are cost effective and impose minimal burden. FMCSA will rewrite the regulations using plain language techniques as resources permit.
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. The rules and regulations in this part apply to the transportation by motor vehicle of collect on delivery shipments by common carriers of property subject to 49 U.S.C. 13702, and extending credit to shippers. The rules do not constrain business decisions or impose costly fees upon small entities.
• General: These rules support 49 U.S.C. 13702, and require certain carriers to publish tariffs in support of non-contiguous domestic trade. FMCSA will rewrite its regulations using plain language techniques as resources permit.
• Section 610: There is no SEISNOSE. These rules involve standard business practices that a prudent carrier should undertake in the proper management of claim disputes even in the absence of the rules. The benefits of the rule justify their costs, and impose only a minimal cost burden on small entities.
• General: These rules support 49 U.S.C. 13301, 14101, 14704, 14705, and 13702(a), which regulate the management of claim disputes. FMCSA will rewrite the regulations using plain language techniques as resources permit.
49 CFR part 356—Motor Carrier Routing Regulations;
49 CFR part 367—Standards for Registration with States;
49 CFR part 369—Reports of Motor Carriers;
49 CFR part 370—Principles and Practices for the Investigation and Voluntary Disposition of Loss and Damage Claims and Processing Salvage;
49 CFR part 371—Brokers of Property; and
49 CFR part 372 (subparts B and C)—Exemptions, Commercial Zones and Terminal Areas.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. NHTSA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: The rule provides minimum requirements for glazing materials, and is necessary to protect railroad employees and railroad passengers from injury as a result of objects striking the windows of locomotives, passenger cars and cabooses. Recent amendments with regard to the clarification existing regulations related to the use of glazing materials in the windows of locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses are expected to reduce paperwork and other economic burdens on the rail industry by removing a stenciling requirement for locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses. FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: FRA proposed to eliminate the five-year reporting requirement in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on June 19, 2013. The final rule eliminated the regulatory requirement that each railroad file a Signal Systems Five-Year Report with FRA which became effective on September 2, 2014. This would reduce paperwork burdens, and protect public health, welfare, safety and environment. FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: The agency has determined that the rule continues to not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. FTA is proposing to amend the rule to align with the statutory requirement to report performance measures and targets for the National Transit Asset Management System as required under 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(3). Currently, the NTD reporting requirements are limited, in some instances, to recipients and sub-recipients of section 5307 urban formula funds and 5311 rural formula funds. The proposed reporting requirements would apply to all recipients and sub-recipients of Chapter 53 funds that own, operate, or manage capital assets used in the provision of public transportation. However, FTA is not proposing to apply all existing NTD reporting requirements to all recipients of chapter 53 funds. FTA has evaluated the likely effects of the proposed rule on small entities and is requesting public comment during the rulemaking process. FTA has determined that the proposed revisions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• General: The rule was promulgated to prescribe requirements and procedures for compliance with Federal data reporting requirements dictated by statute. Recently, Congress included additional reporting requirements for the management of transit asset when it enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, (2012). FTA is promulgating a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement specific reporting requirements of the National Asset Management System in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326. The proposal includes revising 49 CFR part 630 to apply to all recipients of Federal public transit funds instead of being limited to just recipients of Federal funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5311. However, the proposed rule will not extend all current reporting requirements to all recipients. This proposal will revise the regulation to be consistent with current statutory requirements.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE. This rule prescribes minimum safety standards for the transportation of hazardous materials by vessel. Some small entities may be affected, but the economic impact on small entities will not be significant.
• General: The requirements in this rule are necessary to protect workers and the general public from the dangers associated with incidents involving hazardous materials transported by vessel. These provisions closely align
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE. Based on regulated entities, PHMSA found that the majority of operators are not small businesses. Therefore, though some small entities may be affected, the economic impact on small entities will not be significant.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. PHMSA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda and annual regulatory plan.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order (EO) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations. EO 12866 also requires the publication by the Department of a regulatory plan for the upcoming fiscal year.
The Agency Contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review. For this edition of the regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, Access Board, General Counsel, (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda and semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the semiannual regulatory agenda online (the e-Agenda) at
• Regulations currently under development,
• Reviews of existing regulations, and
• Rules completed or canceled since the last agenda.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish it in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker” refers to an online portal to EPA's priority rules and retrospective reviews of existing regulations. More information about the Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker appears in section H of this preamble.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the semiannual regulatory agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
• Semiannual Regulatory Agenda:
• Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility Agenda:
• Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker:
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition to meeting its mission goals and priorities, EPA reviews its existing regulations under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This Executive order provides for periodic retrospective review of existing regulations and is intended to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make the Agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments are provided in each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). To be most effective, comments should contain information and data that support your position and you also should explain why EPA should incorporate your suggestion in the rule or other type of action. You can be particularly helpful and persuasive if you provide examples to illustrate your concerns and offer specific alternatives.
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to State implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to States; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA is initiating one 610 review at this time.
You can choose how to organize the agenda entries online by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—This section includes EPA actions generally intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking, such as Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies, or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—This section includes EPA rulemaking actions that are within a year of proposal (publication of Notices of Proposed Rulemakings [NPRMs]).
3. Final Rule Stage—This section includes rules that will be issued as a final rule within a year.
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action is after November 2016. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—This section contains actions that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may 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 governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
EPA posts monthly information of new rulemakings that the Agency's senior managers have decided to develop. This list is also distributed via email. You can find the current list, known as the Action Initiation List (AIL), at
The Regulatory Information Service Center and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs have a Federal regulatory dashboard that allows users to view the Regulatory Agenda database (
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL that provides additional information about the action.
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is initiating one 610 review at this time.
EPA established an official public docket for the 610 Review. If you would like to provide feedback, submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0541, to the
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA Web site at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Mark Sendzik, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C304-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Keith Barnett, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, D243-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Erik Winchester, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Stephanie Flaharty, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4601M, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the spring 2015 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agency's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process and also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501-4755.
Once implemented, the new GSAR transactional data reporting clauses will enable GSA to provide Federal agencies with further market intelligence and expert guidance in procuring goods and services in each category of GSA acquisition vehicles. The new requirement will not affect the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FSS contract holders.
The proposed amendment to the GSAR will add an alternate version of the existing GSAR clause 552.238-74 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting (IFF) (Federal Supply Schedule) and a new GSAR clause 552.216-75 Sales Reporting and Fee Remittance. Under the FSS program, vendors that agree to the new transactional reporting requirement will have their contracts modified with an alternate version of clause 552.238-75 Price Reductions; the alternate version of clause 552.238-75 does not require the vendor to monitor and provide price reductions to the Government when the customer or category of customer upon which the contract was predicated receives a discount. GSA will implement the new transactional data reporting requirements in phases, beginning with specific contract vehicles, including a few select Federal Supply Schedules, or Special Item Numbers that show the greatest potential to optimize transactional data via category management and reduced price variability. GSA will engage stakeholders throughout the phases of the implementation.
GSA is reviewing the public comments received and analyzing alternatives for issuing collecting transactional data, including the potential publication of a final rule.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358-0252.
OMB guidelines dated August 13, 2015, “Fall 2015 Data Call for the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA expects that this summary information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory activity. SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Imelda A. Kish, Law Librarian, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6849,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
SBA provides this notice under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” which require each agency to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The Regulatory Agenda is a summary of all current and projected Agency rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last Regulatory Agenda. SBA's last Semiannual Regulatory Agenda was published on June 18, 2015, at 80 FR 35098. The Semiannual Agenda of the SBA conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Unified Agenda has been disseminated via the Internet. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
This rule proposes to make three changes to the Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program. The first would change the threshold for notification to SBA of changes in the contract or bond amount. Secondly, the change would require sureties to submit quarterly contract completion reports. Finally, SBA proposes to increase the eligible contract limit for the Quick Bond Application and Agreement from $250,000 to $400,000.
The title for this rule has been changed since the rule was first reported in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013, from “Small Business Size Standards for Wholesale Trade” to “Small Business Size Standards: Employee Based Size Standards for Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade.” The title was changed to make it clear that the rule also addresses industries with employee based size standards in Retail Trade.
The title for this rule has been changed since it was first announced in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013 to add the words or Retail Trade at the end of the previous title. This change makes it clear that industries in the retail trade with employee based size standards are also not addressed in the rule.
Completed:
Completed:
Completed:
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the dates shown.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Hada Flowers, Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed on the FAR Web site at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Fall 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 1, 2015, to October 31, 2016. The next agenda will be published in spring 2016 and will update this agenda through spring 2017. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of September 18, 2015.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein.
The CFPB is publishing its fall 2015 agenda as part of the Fall 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The CFPB's participation in the Unified Agenda is voluntary. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the public at the following Web site:
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the CFPB from seven federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The CFPB is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to rulemaking activities.
The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 1, 2015, to October 31, 2016.
The Bureau is working on a number of rulemakings to address important consumer protection issues in a wide variety of markets for consumer financial products and services.
For example, the Bureau is beginning a rulemaking process to follow up on a report it issued to Congress in March 2015, concerning the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial products or services. The report, which was required by the Dodd-Frank Act, expanded on preliminary results of arbitration research that had been released by the Bureau in December 2013. Following release of the report, the CFPB analyzed whether rules governing pre-dispute arbitration agreements are warranted, and, if so, what types of rules would be appropriate. The Bureau has preliminarily determined that it should proceed with a rulemaking regarding pre-dispute arbitration agreements. To begin the rulemaking process, the Bureau intends to convene a panel in fall 2015 under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to consult with small businesses that may be affected by the policy proposals under consideration.
The Bureau is also considering rules to address consumer harms from practices related to payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar credit products, including failure to determine whether consumers have the ability to repay without default or reborrowing and certain payment collection practices. Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Bureau released in March 2015, an outline of proposals under consideration for the rulemaking. As part of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act process, in April 2015, the Bureau, along with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, met with small lenders that may be affected by the rulemaking to obtain feedback on the proposals. This rulemaking builds on Bureau research, including a white paper the Bureau published on these products in April 2013, a data point providing additional research in March 2014, and ongoing analysis. The Bureau expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in early 2016 after additional outreach and analysis.
Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on overdraft programs on checking accounts. The CFPB issued a white paper in June 2013, and a report in July 2014, based on supervisory data from several large banks that highlighted a number of possible consumer protection concerns, including how consumers opt in to overdraft coverage for ATM and one-time debit card transactions, overdraft coverage limits, transaction posting order practices, overdraft and insufficient funds fee structure, and involuntary account closures. The CFPB is continuing to engage in additional research and has begun consumer testing initiatives relating to the opt-in process.
The Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on debt collection activities, which are the single largest source of complaints to the Federal Government of any industry. Building on the Bureau's November 2013, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the CFPB is in the process of analyzing the results of a survey to obtain information from consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau is also undertaking consumer testing initiatives to determine what information would be useful for consumers to have about debt collection and their debts and how that information should be provided to them.
The Bureau is also working on a final rule to create a comprehensive set of consumer protections for prepaid financial products, such as general purpose reloadable cards and other similar products, which are increasingly being used by consumers in place of traditional checking accounts or credit cards. The proposed rule would expressly bring prepaid products within the ambit of Regulation E (which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act) as prepaid accounts and create new provisions specific to such accounts. The proposal would also amend Regulation E and Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in
The Bureau is also continuing rulemaking activities that will further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority. On June 30, 2015, the Bureau published in the
The Bureau is also continuing to develop research on other critical markets to help implement statutory directives and to assess whether regulation of other consumer financial products and services may be warranted. For example, the Bureau is starting its work to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau will focus on outreach and research to develop its understanding of the players, products, and practices in the small business lending market and of the potential ways to implement section 1071. The CFPB then expects to begin developing proposed regulations concerning the data to be collected and appropriate procedures, information safeguards, and privacy protections for information-gathering under this section.
The Bureau is also continuing efforts to implement critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act to guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades. The Bureau has already issued regulations implementing Dodd-Frank Act protections for mortgage originations and servicing, and integrating various federal mortgage disclosures as discussed further below.
The Bureau is also working to implement Dodd-Frank amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which augment existing data reporting requirements regarding housing-related loans and applications for such loans. In addition to obtaining data that is critical to the purposes of HMDA—which include providing the public and public officials with information that can be used to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, assisting public officials in the distribution of public sector investments, and assisting in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes—the Bureau views this rulemaking as an opportunity to streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting in furtherance of its mission under the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden. The Bureau published a proposed HMDA rule in the
The Bureau is also working to support implementation of its final rule combining several federal mortgage disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The project to integrate and streamline the disclosures was mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act. The integrated forms are the cornerstone of the Bureau's broader “Know Before You Owe” mortgage initiative. The final rule was issued in November 2013, and takes effect October 3, 2015. The Bureau has worked intensively to support implementation efforts, including consumer education initiatives. To facilitate implementation, the Bureau has released a small entity compliance guide, a guide to forms, a readiness guide, sample forms, and additional materials. The Bureau has conducted six free, publicly available webinars to answer common questions and hosted an additional webinar targeted at housing counselors. In January 2015, after extensive outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau adopted two minor modifications and technical amendments to the Rule to smooth compliance for industry.
The Bureau is also working to support the full implementation of, and facilitate compliance with, various mortgage-related final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2013, to strengthen consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of mortgages. These rules, implementing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, were all effective by January 2014. The Bureau is working diligently to monitor the market and plans to make clarifications and adjustments to the rules where warranted. For example, in order to promote access to credit, the Bureau engaged in further research to assess the impact of certain provisions implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act that modify general requirements for small creditors, including those small creditors that operate predominantly in “rural or underserved” areas, and published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The Bureau also published a proposal in the
The Bureau has also updated its long-term agenda to reflect its expectations beyond fiscal year 2016. As noted in these items, the Bureau intends to explore potential rulemakings to address important issues related to consumer reporting and student loan servicing. The Bureau has also eliminated a listing for certain mortgage-related rulemakings inherited from other agencies pursuant to the transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2011. The Bureau remains interested in the subjects of these rulemakings but anticipates that it would develop new proposals rather than finalizing notices that are at least five years old.
With regard to consumer reporting, the Bureau continues to monitor the credit reporting market through its supervisory, enforcement, and research efforts, and to consider prior research, including a white paper the Bureau published on the largest consumer reporting agencies in December 2012, and reports on credit report accuracy produced by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses to issues identified, including potential additional rules or amendments to existing rules governing consumer reporting. Potential topics for consideration might include the accuracy of credit reports, including the processes for resolving consumer disputes, or other issues.
Further, in May 2015, the CFPB issued a request for information seeking comment from the public regarding student loan servicing practices, including those related to payment processing, servicing transfers, complaint resolution, co-signer release, and procedures regarding alternative repayment and refinancing options. In September 2015, the CFPB released a report regarding student loan servicing practices, based, in part, on comments submitted in response to the request for information. The CFPB will also continue to monitor the student loan servicing market for trends and developments. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including potential rulemaking. Possible topics for consideration might include specific acts or practices and consumer disclosures.
The Bureau has continued work to consider opportunities to modernize and streamline regulations that it inherited from other agencies pursuant to a transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. This work includes implementing the consolidation and streamlining of federal mortgage disclosure forms discussed earlier, and exploring opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden as part of the HMDA rulemaking. While the Bureau considers the modernizing and streamlining effort to be important, it has determined that aspects of the inherited proposals to amend Regulation Z have become stale with the passage of several years since their issuance. At this point, the Bureau believes that any rulemaking it may undertake in the areas the proposals addressed would be best achieved through fresh initiatives that would begin with new proposals based on new reviews of the relevant markets and other appropriate outreach and fact gathering, followed by fresh analyses of any policy and legal issues or concerns presented. The CFPB has been evaluating further action regarding these pending proposals and, at this time, has determined that it will take no further action. For this reason, the Bureau has chosen not to include the item entry titled, “TILA Mortgage Amendments (Regulations Z)” (RIN 3170-AA09) from the current edition of the semiannual regulatory agenda. The Bureau is continuing to assess the mortgage market on an ongoing basis and will revisit the need to initiate new proposals at a later date.
The Bureau also has begun planning to conduct assessments of significant rules it has adopted, pursuant to section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. That section requires the Bureau to conduct such assessments to address, among other relevant factors, the effectiveness of the rules in meeting the purposes and objectives of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and the specific goals of the rules assessed, to publish a report of each assessment not later than 5 years after the effective date of the subject rule, and to invite public comment on recommendations for modifying, expanding, or eliminating the subject rule before publishing each report. The Bureau will provide further information about its expectations for the lookback process as its planning continues.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Office of the Secretary on or before January 14, 2016.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda,” and be emailed to:
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Eileen Williams, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408;
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities. The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda also is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the spring 2015 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive Orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 with respect to the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means of disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain and new information, changes of circumstances or of law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
On July 10, 2015, the commission released a Declaratory Ruling and Order resolving 21 separate requests for clarification or other action regarding the TCPA. It clarified, among other things, that: Nothing in the Communications Act of the Commission's rules prohibits carriers or other service providers from implementing consumer-initiated call-blocking technologies; equipment meets the TCPA's definition of “autodialer” if it has the “capacity” to store or produce random sequential numbers, and to dial them, even if it is not presently used for that purpose; an “app” provider that plays a minimal role in making a call, such as just proving the app itself, is not the maker of the call for TCPA purposes; consumers who have previously consented to robocalls may revoke that consent at any time and through any reasonable means; the TCPA requires the consent of the party called—the subscriber to a phone number or the customary user of the number—not the intended recipient of the call; and callers who make calls without knowledge or reassignment of a wireless phone number and with a reasonable basis to believe that they have valid consent to make the call to the wireless number should be able to initiate one call after reassignment as an additional opportunity to gain actual or constructive knowledge of the reassignment and cease future calls to the new subscriber. The Commission also exempted certain financial and healthcare-related calls, when free to the consumer, from the TCPA's consumer-consent requirement.
In the Report and Order, the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that currently apply to wireless terrestrial services to terrestrial services provided using the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of an MSS system. Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.
In the Report and Order (R&O), the Commission revised and streamlined its rules to modernize the Experimental Radio Service (ERS). The rules adopted in the R&O updated the ERS to a more flexible framework to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change while continuing to provide an environment where creativity can thrive. To accomplish this transition, the Commission created three new types of ERS licenses—the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license—to benefit the development of new technologies, expedite their introduction to the marketplace, and unleash the full power of innovators to keep the United States at the forefront of the communications industry. The Commission's actions also modified the market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate its policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification. The Commission believes that these actions will remove regulatory barriers to experimentation, thereby permitting institutions to move from concept to experimentation to finished product more rapidly and to more quickly implement creative problem-solving methodologies.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of emergency notification providers to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission proposes to modify the rules for program experimental licenses to permit experimentation for radio frequency (RF)-based medical devices, if the device being tested is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; part 95, Personal Radio Services subpart H Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or part 95, subpart I Medical Device Radiocommunication Service. This proposal is designed to establish parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices as to permissible frequencies of operation.
This Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of emergency notification providers: To its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.
Navtech Radar, Ltd. and Honeywell International, Inc., filed petitions for reconsideration in response to the
The Commission denied Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provides three ways in which a petition for reconsideration
The Commission stated in the Vehicular Radar R&O, “that no parties have come forward to support fixed radar applications beyond airport locations in this band,” and it decided not to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed radar use other than those for FOD detection applications at airport locations. Because Navtech first participated in the proceeding when it filed its petition well after the decision was published, its petition fails to meet the timeliness standard of section 1.429(d).
In connection with the Commission's decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 (pertaining to vehicular radar).
In the Report and Order the Commission implemented allocation changes from the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) (WRC-07) and updated related service rules. The Commission took this action in order to conform its rules, to the extent practical, to the decisions that the international community made at WRC-07. This action will promote the advancement of new and expanded services and provide significant benefits to the American people. In addition, the Commission revised the International Table of Frequency Allocations within its rules to generally reflect the allocation changes made at the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012) (WRC-12).
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
In the Report and Order, the Commission took preliminary steps toward making a significant portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands (U/V Bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses. This action serves to further address the Nation's growing demand for wireless broadband services, promote the ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and ensure that the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution. At the same time, the approach helps preserve broadcast television as a healthy, viable medium and would be consistent with the general proposal set forth in the National Broadband Plan to repurpose spectrum from the U/V bands for new wireless broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to an incentive auction. This action is consistent with the recent enactment by Congress of new incentive auction authority for the Commission (Spectrum Act). Specifically, this item sets out a framework by which two or more television licensees may share a single six MHz channel in connection with an incentive auction. However, the Report and Order did not act on the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish fixed and mobile allocations in the U/V bands or to improve TV service on VHF channels. The Report and Order stated that the Commission will undertake a broader rulemaking to implement the Spectrum Act's provisions relating to an incentive auction for U/V band spectrum, and that it believes it will be more efficient to act on new allocations in the context of that rulemaking. In addition, the record created in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not establish a clear way forward to increase the utility of the VHF bands significantly for the operation of television services. The Report and Order states that the Commission will revisit this matter in a future proceeding.
The Report and Order in this proceeding modifies part 15 of the Commission's rules for level probing radars (LPRs) operating on an unlicensed basis in the 5.9257.250 GHz, 24.0529.00 GHz, and 7585 GHz bands to revise our measurement procedures to provide more accurate and repeatable measurement protocols for these devices. LPR devices are lowpower radars that measure the level (relative height) of various substances in manmade or natural containments. In open air environments, LPR devices may be used to measure levels of substances such as water basin levels or coal piles. An LPR device that is installed inside an enclosure, which could be filled with liquids or granulates, is commonly referred to as a tank level probing radar (TLPR). LPR (including TLPR) devices can provide accurate and reliable target resolution to identify water levels in rivers and dams or critical levels of materials such as fuel or sewertreated waste, reducing overflow and spillage and minimizing exposure of maintenance personnel in the case of high risk substances. The new rules will benefit the public and industry by improving the accuracy and reliability of these measuring tools, and providing needed flexibility and cost savings for LPR device manufacturers which should, in turn, make them more available to users, without causing harmful interference to authorized services.
In the 2014 review, the Commission incorporated the record of the 2010 review, and sought additional data on market conditions and competitive indicators. The Commission also sought comment on whether to eliminate restrictions on newspaper/radio combined ownership and whether to eliminate the radio/television cross-ownership rule in favor of reliance on the local radio rule and the local television rule.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules. The Commission sought additional comment in 2014. As directed by the court, the Commission considered a socially and economic disadvantaged business definition as a possible oasis for favorable regulatory treatment.
In the 2014 Report and Order, the Commission adopted a rule providing that it is a violation of the duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for a television station that is ranked among the top four stations to negotiate retransmission consent jointly with another such station if the stations are not commonly owned and serve the same geographic market.
On June 2, 2014, the Commission released a Second Report and Order to provide a limited expansion of the types of entities eligible for a low power auxiliary station license under part 74 of its rules to include qualifying professional sound companies, as well as owners and operators of large venues, as further explained in the order. The Commission also: (1) Denied requests to expand eligibility under part 74 to include nuclear power plants, but modified a previous waiver concerning the operation of unlicensed low power auxiliary devices both inside and outside the plants; (2) adopted provisions to condition any new LPAS licenses on the requirement to cease operating in repurposed UHF spectrum in connection with the Commission's Incentive Auction Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-268 (FCC 14-50); and (3) provided newly eligible licensees with an initial and renewal license term not to exceed 10 years.
The incentive auction will consist of a reverse auction” to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that will allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elect voluntarily to participate in the auction have three basic options: voluntarily go off the air, share their spectrum, or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the broad rules for the incentive auction. Consistent with past practice, in December 2014, a public notice was issued asking for comment specific key components related to implementing the June 2014 Report and Order. The public notice asking for comment will be followed by a public notice with the specific procedures about how to participate in the incentive auction. The start of the Incentive Auction is planned for early 2016.
Today's action is a first step to implement the congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding,¿ unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930-1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We, therefore, propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, aiming to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
On November 10, 2014, the FCC released a Report and Order (R&O) and a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to revise rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular Service. In the R&O, the FCC eliminated various regulatory requirements and streamlined requirements remaining in place, while retaining Cellular Service licensees' ability to expand into an area that is not yet licensed. In the FNPRM, the FCC proposes and seeks comment on additional Cellular Service reforms of licensing rules and the radiated power rules, to promote flexibility and help foster the deployment of newer technologies such as LTE.
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On October 16, 2014, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comments on proposed methodology for Connect America Fund recipients to measure and report speed and latency performance to fixed locations.
On December 18, 2014, the Commission released a Report and Order finalizing decisions necessary to proceed to Phase II of the Connect America Fund.
On December 19, 2014, the Commission released a Second E-rate Modernization Order adjusting program rules and support levels in order to meet long-term program goals for high speed connectivity.
On January 30, 2015, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment on the Alliance of Rural Broadband applicants petition for limited waiver of certain RBE letter of credit requirements.
On February 4, 2015, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comments on NTCA's emergency petition for limited waiver of RBE letter of credit bank eligibility requirements.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
On February 13, 2015, the Wireline Competition Bureau provided additional guidance regarding how providers must request information. The Commission also adopted an Order on Reconsideration addressing petitions for reconsideration. Reports have been due quarterly beginning with the second quarter of 2015.
In order to provide the best possible legal foundation for these rules, the Commission's Declaratory Ruling reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to title II of the Communications Act. Finally, in order to tailor title II to the 21st century broadband ecosystem, the Commission issued an Order forbearing from the majority of title II provisions, leaving in place a light-touch regime that will support regulatory action while simultaneously encouraging broadband investment, innovation, and deployment.
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include any state requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Order also requires interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. As conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, interconnected VoIP providers are also required to: (1) Provide the relevant state commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant state commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area.
Finally, the Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI) codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period November 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. The next agenda will be published in spring 2016.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted anytime during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its fall 2015 agenda as part of the Fall 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following Web site:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Prerule Stage, reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second section, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. And a fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Mark Buresh, Attorney, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division,
Thomas R. Boemio, Manager, Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation,
Abstract: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) proposed amendments to Regulation CC to facilitate the banking industry's ongoing transition to fully electronic interbank check collection and return, including proposed amendments to subpart C to condition a depositary bank's right of expeditious return on the depositary bank agreeing to accept returned checks electronically, either directly or indirectly, from the paying bank. The Board also proposed amendments to subpart B, the funds availability schedule provisions to reflect the fact that there are no longer any non-local checks. The Board proposed to revise the model forms in appendix C that banks may use in disclosing their funds availability policies to their customers and to update the preemption determinations in appendix F. Finally, the Board requested comment on whether it should consider future changes to the regulation to improve the check collection system, such as decreasing the time afforded to a paying bank to decide whether to pay a check in order to reduce the risk to a depositary bank of needing to make funds available for withdrawal before learning whether a deposited check has been returned unpaid.
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing its semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The NRC has completed 8 rulemaking activities since publication of its last Agenda on June 18, 2015 (80 FR 35170). This issuance of the NRC's Agenda contains 34 active and 23 long-term rulemaking activities: 3 are Economically Significant; 10 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 50 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and 2 are Administrative rulemaking activity. In addition, 4 rulemaking activities impact small entities. This issuance also contains the NRC's annual regulatory plan, which includes a statement of the major rules that the NRC expects to publish in the coming fiscal year (FY) and a description of the other significant regulatory priorities that the NRC expects to work on during the coming FY and beyond. The NRC is requesting comment on its rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by January 14, 2016.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in any
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0222 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
• Reginfo.gov:
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0222 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Agenda.
A “Regulation Identifier Number” or RIN is given to each rulemaking activity that the NRC has published or plans on publishing a
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
A key part of the NRC's regulatory program is a periodic review of all ongoing and potential rulemaking activities. In conjunction with its budget, the NRC compiles a Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) report to develop program budget estimates and to determine the relative priority of NRC rulemaking activities. The CPR process considers four factors and assigns a score to each factor. Factor A includes activities that support the NRC's Strategic Plan goals of ensuring the safe and secure use of radioactive materials. Factor B includes rulemaking activities that support the NRC's Strategic Plan cross-cutting strategies for enhancing regulatory effectiveness and/or openness in the conduct of regulatory activities. Factor C is a governmental factor representing the relative interest of the NRC, Congress, or other governmental bodies in the rulemaking activity. Factor D is an external factor representing the relative interest to members of the public, non-governmental organizations, the nuclear industry, vendors, and suppliers in the rulemaking activity. The overall priority is determined by adding the factor scores together for each rulemaking activity. The CPR report and a detailed description of the CPR process are available from the NRC's Web site at
The NRC's fall Agenda contains its annual regulatory plan, which includes a statement of the major rules that the NRC expects to publish in the coming FY and a description of the other significant regulatory priorities from the CPR that the NRC expects to work on during the coming FY and beyond. The NRC's regulatory plan was submitted to OMB in June 2015; updates have been reflected in the Agenda abstract for each rulemaking.
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The NRC has received comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding the level of detail provided in the abstract for each NRC rulemaking activity and on the process the NRC uses to prioritize its rulemaking activities.
The NRC actively seeks to improve its rulemaking process and reporting. In recent Agendas NRC has reported additional information in the preamble and in the abstracts for its rules; in addition, in June of 2015, NRC launched a new public Web page with detail on the NRC's process for rulemaking prioritization:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Completed:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chair's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2015, reflect only the priorities of the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on September 23, 2015, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before January 14, 2016.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Anne Sullivan, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5019.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
“JOBS Act”—Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act'
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Sebastian Gomez Abero, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549,
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 |