Federal Register Vol. 80, No.243,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 243 (December 18, 2015)

Page Range78957-79229
FR Document

80_FR_243
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 79223 - Strengthening the Senior Executive ServicePDF
80 FR 78957 - Bill of Rights Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 79039 - Issuance of NPDES General Permits for Wastewater Lagoon Systems Located in Indian Country in Region 8PDF
80 FR 79028 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 79066 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Airport SecurityPDF
80 FR 79056 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Exportation of Used Self-Propelled VehiclesPDF
80 FR 79067 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Secure Flight ProgramPDF
80 FR 78979 - Safety Zone; Circle Line Sightseeing Fireworks, Liberty Island, Upper New York Bay, Manhattan, NYPDF
80 FR 79055 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Diesel Outboard Engine DevelopmentPDF
80 FR 79068 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Federal Flight Deck Officer ProgramPDF
80 FR 79041 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 79037 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct Scoping Meetings; and Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement; Colusa-Sutter 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, California (DOE/EIS-0514)PDF
80 FR 79092 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0029PDF
80 FR 79036 - Intent To Compromise Claim Against the State of Washington Department of Services for the BlindPDF
80 FR 79010 - Safety Zone; JI Mei Design Construction Co., LTD, Hudson River, Manhattan, NYPDF
80 FR 79045 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 79132 - Rutherford Railroad Development Corporation-Abandonment Exemption-in Rutherford County, NC; Southeast Shortlines, Inc. d/b/a Thermal Belt Railway-Discontinuance Exemption-in Rutherford County, NCPDF
80 FR 78979 - Security Zone; Kailua Bay, Oahu, HIPDF
80 FR 79076 - Promise Zones Initiative: Third Round Selection ProcessPDF
80 FR 79031 - Marine Mammals; File No. 16109PDF
80 FR 78977 - Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and HealthPDF
80 FR 79104 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardPDF
80 FR 79079 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Third Quarter of Calendar Year 2015PDF
80 FR 79127 - Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation-Notice of Closed and Open Meetings for 2016PDF
80 FR 79057 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System (NEFRLS)PDF
80 FR 79100 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center (OVC TTAC) Feedback Form PackagePDF
80 FR 78971 - Minimum Value of Eligible Employer-Sponsored Plans and Other Rules Regarding the Health Insurance Premium Tax CreditPDF
80 FR 79133 - R. J. Corman Railroad Company/Carolina Lines, LLC-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-The Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad Company d/b/a Carolina Southern Railroad CompanyPDF
80 FR 79110 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 79134 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Ben Hill County, Ga.PDF
80 FR 79133 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Bell and Harlan Counties, Ky.PDF
80 FR 79043 - Health Insurance MarketplaceSMPDF
80 FR 79029 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 79030 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 78978 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, ILPDF
80 FR 79031 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 79033 - Information Collection Requirements; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DFARS Part 242, Contract Administration and Related Clause in DFARS 252PDF
80 FR 79034 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); Contract FinancingPDF
80 FR 79128 - Actions Taken at December 4, 2015, MeetingPDF
80 FR 79090 - Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision on the Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan for Incidental Take of Nine Federally Listed Species in Central TexasPDF
80 FR 78978 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJPDF
80 FR 79028 - North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 79094 - Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 79127 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 79049 - Announcement of Intent To Establish the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Committee MembershipPDF
80 FR 79108 - Information Collection: Domestic Licensing of Source MaterialPDF
80 FR 79105 - Information Collection: Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) for the Collection of Event Report, Response, Analyses, and Follow-Up Data on Events Involving the Use of Atomic Energy Act (AEA) Radioactive Byproduct MaterialPDF
80 FR 79102 - Information Collection: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial AssistancePDF
80 FR 79053 - Workshop on Addressing Challenges in the Assessment of Botanical Dietary Supplement Safety; Notice of Public Meeting; Registration InformationPDF
80 FR 79051 - Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods Communities of Practice Webinar on Fundamentals of Using Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models and Read-across Techniques in Predictive Toxicology; Notice of Public Webinar; Registration InformationPDF
80 FR 79052 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of a Small Molecule Farnesoid X Receptor InhibitorPDF
80 FR 79134 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of Meeting-CancellationPDF
80 FR 79129 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
80 FR 78970 - New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; NitarsonePDF
80 FR 79032 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
80 FR 79047 - Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 79047 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XTANDIPDF
80 FR 79100 - Proposed Collection, Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 79041 - Drug Testing Compliance Group, LLC; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 79111 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 79112 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 79114 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of an Advance Notice, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Concerning The Options Clearing Corporation's Non-Bank Liquidity FacilityPDF
80 FR 79097 - Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Commission's Determination to Review an Initial Determination in Part and, on Review, To Affirm a Finding of a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and BondingPDF
80 FR 79096 - Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices With Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein Commission Decision Not To Review the ALJ's Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 79111 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 79111 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 79181 - Enterprise Duty To Serve Underserved MarketsPDF
80 FR 79093 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and VietnamPDF
80 FR 79097 - Potassium Permanganate From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 79035 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Navigational Improvements to Manatee Harbor in Manatee County, FLPDF
80 FR 78984 - Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business-CertificationPDF
80 FR 79069 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program and Supplement, Form I-924 and I-924A; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 79034 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Conduct Scoping Meeting for the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project General Reevaluation Report and Integrated EIS/EIR, County of Marin, CAPDF
80 FR 79109 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 79107 - Information Collection: NRC Form 664, “General Licensee Registration”PDF
80 FR 79103 - Information Collection: Request for Information Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights From the Fukushima Dai-ichi EventPDF
80 FR 79106 - Information Collection: NRC Form 531 “Request for Taxpayer Identification Number”PDF
80 FR 79099 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection Relief of Disabilities and Application for Restoration of Explosive PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 79013 - Cape Lookout National Seashore, Off-Road Vehicle ManagementPDF
80 FR 79122 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Modify and Eliminate Certain Rules and To Enable Trading Activity To Resume on the ExchangePDF
80 FR 79112 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 0150 To Apply FINRA Rule 2121 and its Supplementary Material .01 and .02 to Transactions in Exempted Securities That Are Government SecuritiesPDF
80 FR 79117 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Seventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange To Establish a Committee for Review as a Sub-Committee of the ROC and Make Conforming Changes to Rules and the NYSE MKT Company GuidePDF
80 FR 79124 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add to the Rules of the Exchange the Ninth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of New York Stock Exchange LLCPDF
80 FR 79126 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 78969 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Smoothhound Shark Management MeasuresPDF
80 FR 79130 - Request for Comments Concerning an Environmental Review of the Proposed Environmental Goods AgreementPDF
80 FR 79095 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From Canada and ChinaPDF
80 FR 78981 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport of OzonePDF
80 FR 79029 - National Saltwater Angler Registry ProgramPDF
80 FR 79046 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 79037 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program Application DocumentsPDF
80 FR 79052 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 79052 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 79053 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 79054 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 79050 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 79053 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 79102 - Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 78989 - Motor Vehicle Traffic SupervisionPDF
80 FR 78967 - Debt CollectionPDF
80 FR 78967 - Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Small Business AdministrationPDF
80 FR 78967 - Business LoansPDF
80 FR 78967 - Standards of Conduct and Employee Restrictions and ResponsibilitiesPDF
80 FR 78986 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Butte, MTPDF
80 FR 78967 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Los Angeles, CAPDF
80 FR 78988 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Truckee, CAPDF
80 FR 79058 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety ProgramPDF
80 FR 79070 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 79131 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highways in ColoradoPDF
80 FR 79020 - Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling ServicesPDF
80 FR 79135 - Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling ServicesPDF
80 FR 78959 - Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve BanksPDF

Issue

80 243 Friday, December 18, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Army Army Department PROPOSED RULES Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision, 78989-79010 2015-31762 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 79032-79033 2015-31826 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79045-79046 2015-31887 Meetings: Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education, 79043-79045 2015-31861 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disaster Information Collection Form, 79046-79047 2015-31774 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ, 78978-78979 2015-31842 Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL, 78978 2015-31856 Safety Zones: Circle Line Sightseeing Fireworks, Liberty Island, Upper New York Bay, Manhattan, NY, 78979 2015-31910 Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI, 78979-78981 2015-31885 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: JI Mei Design Construction Co., LTD, Hudson River, Manhattan, NY, 79010-79012 2015-31899 NOTICES Cooperative Research and Development Agreements: Diesel Outboard Engine Development, 79055-79056 2015-31909 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 79031-79032 2015-31855 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Contract Financing, 79034 2015-31846 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Contract Administration and Related Clause in DFARS 252, 79033-79034 2015-31848 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Engineers Corps

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program Application Documents, 79037 2015-31773 Intent to Compromise Claim Against the State of Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 79036-79037 2015-31900 Energy Department Energy Department See

Western Area Power Administration

Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project, County of Marin, CA, 79034-79035 2015-31804 Navigational Improvements to Manatee Harbor, Manatee County, FL, 79035-79036 2015-31807 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Idaho; Interstate Transport of Ozone, 78981-78983 2015-31778 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 79041 2015-31903 Issuance of NPDES General Permits: Wastewater Lagoon Systems; Indian Country in Region 8, 79039-79040 2015-31916 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Los Angeles, CA, 78967-78969 2015-31645 PROPOSED RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Butte, MT, 78986-78987 2015-31646 Truckee, CA, 78988-78989 2015-31644 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 79136-79180 2015-31252 PROPOSED RULES Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 79020-79027 2015-31253 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System, 79057-79058 2015-31870 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highways: Colorado, 79131-79132 2015-31487 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency PROPOSED RULES Enterprise Duty to Serve Underserved Markets, 79182-79222 2015-31811 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks, 78959-78967 2015-30584 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Analysis to Aid Public Comment: Drug Testing Compliance Group, LLC, 79041-79043 2015-31822 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan for Incidental Take of Nine Federally Listed Species in Central Texas, 79090-79092 2015-31844 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES New Animal Drugs: Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Nitarsone, 78970-78971 2015-31827 2015-31828 NOTICES Meetings: Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, 79047 2015-31825 Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension: XTANDI, 79047-79049 2015-31824 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee, 79028 2015-31841 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79028-79029 2015-31914 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 79049-79050 2015-31837
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program, 79058-79066 2015-31625
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Approved Regulatory Waiver Requests for the Third Quarter of Calendar Year 2015, 79079-79090 2015-31874 Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 79070-79076 2015-31504 Promise Zone Initiatives: Third Round Selection Process, 79076-79079 2015-31884 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Minimum Value of Eligible Employer-Sponsored Plans and Other Rules Regarding the Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit, 78971-78977 2015-31866 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Potassium Permanganate from China, 79097 2015-31809 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, 79097-79099 2015-31817 Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and China, 79095-79096 2015-31779 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 79093-79094 2015-31810 Consumer Electronics and Display Devices with Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein, 79096-79097 2015-31816 Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same, 79094-79095 2015-31839 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center Feedback Form Package, 79100 2015-31869 Relief of Disabilities and Application for Restoration of Explosive Privileges, 79099-79100 2015-31794 Labor Department Labor Department See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79100-79102 2015-31823 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79092-79093 2015-31901 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Licenses: Development of a Small Molecule Farnesoid X Receptor Inhibitor, 79052 2015-31831 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 79053 2015-31767 Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods Communities of Practice Webinar on Fundamentals of Using Quantitative Structure: Activity Relationship Models and Read-across Techniques in Predictive Toxicology; Registration Information, 79051 2015-31832 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 79053 2015-31770 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 79052-79053 2015-31772 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 79054-79055 2015-31769 National Institute of Nursing Research, 79050-79051 2015-31768 National Institute on Aging, 79052 2015-31771 Workshop on Addressing Challenges in the Assessment of Botanical Dietary Supplement Safety; Registration Information, 79053-79054 2015-31833 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Smoothhound Shark Management Measures, 78969-78970 2015-31782 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 79029-79031 2015-31859 2015-31860 National Saltwater Angler Registry Program, 79029-79030 2015-31776 Permit Applications: Marine Mammals; File No. 16109, 79031 2015-31879 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Off-Road Vehicle Management: Cape Lookout National Seashore, 79013-79020 2015-31793 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences, 79102 2015-31765 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 79108-79109 2015-31836 General Licensee Registration, 79107-79108 2015-31798 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 79102-79103 2015-31834 Nuclear Material Events Database for the Collection of Event Report, Response, Analyses, and Follow-up Data, etc., 79105-79106 2015-31835 Recommendations of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Event, 79103-79104 2015-31797 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number, 79106-79107 2015-31796 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 79104-79105 2015-31875 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health, 78977-78978 2015-31878 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 79109-79111 2015-31800 2015-31801 2015-31803 2015-31864 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 79111 2015-31815 Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 79111-79112 2015-31812 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 79111-79112 2015-31813 2015-31814 2015-31820 2015-31821 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Bill of Rights Day (Proc. 9381), 78957-78958 2015-31976 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Government Agencies and Employees: Senior Executive Service; Strengthening Efforts (EO 13714), 79223-79229 2015-32060 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 79112-79113 2015-31789 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 79122-79124 2015-31790 NYSE Arca, Inc., 79126-79127 2015-31786 NYSE MKT LLC, 79117-79122, 79124-79125 2015-31788 2015-31787 Options Clearing Corp., 79114-79117 2015-31818 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Business Loans; CFR Correction, 78967 2015-31739 Debt Collection; CFR Correction, 78967 2015-31745 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Small Business Administration; CFR Correction, 78967 2015-31740 Standards of Conduct and Employee Restrictions and Responsibilities; CFR Correction, 78967 2015-31738 PROPOSED RULES Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business; Certification, 78984-78986 2015-31806 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79127 2015-31838 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, 79127-79128 2015-31872 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Ben Hill County, GA, 79134 2015-31863 Rutherford Railroad Development Corp., Rutherford County, NC, 79132-79133 2015-31886 Acquisition and Operation Exemptions: R. J. Corman Railroad Company/Carolina Lines, LLC; The Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad Co. d/b/a Carolina Southern Railroad Co., 79133-79134 2015-31865 Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Bell and Harlan Counties, KY, 79133 2015-31862 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Actions Taken at December 4, 2015, Meeting, 79128-79129 2015-31845 Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water, 79129-79130 2015-31829 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Environmental Review of the Proposed Environmental Goods Agreement, 79130-79131 2015-31781 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Airport Security, 79066-79067 2015-31913 Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, 79068-79069 2015-31908 Secure Flight Program, 79067-79068 2015-31911 Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Program and Supplement, 79069-79070 2015-31805 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Exportation of Used Self-Propelled Vehicles, 79056-79057 2015-31912 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Cancellation, 79134 2015-31830 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement; Colusa-Sutter 500-kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, CA; Scoping Meetings, 79037-79039 2015-31902 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 79136-79180 2015-31252 Part III Federal Housing Finance Agency, 79182-79222 2015-31811 Part IV Presidential Documents, 79223-79229 2015-32060 Reader Aids

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.

80 243 Friday, December 18, 2015 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 201 [Regulation A; Docket No. R-1476] RIN 7100-AE08 Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks AGENCY:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Board is adopting amendments to Regulation A (Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks) to implement the emergency lending authorities provided under the 3rd undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (the FRA) as amended by sections 1101 and 1103 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act). These provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act require the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to establish by regulation policies and procedures with respect to emergency lending under section 13(3) of the FRA.

DATES:

Effective January 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurie S. Schaffer, Associate General Counsel (202) 452-2272, Sophia H. Allison, Special Counsel (202) 452-3565, or Jay R. Schwarz, Senior Counsel (202) 452-2970, Legal Division. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

On December 23, 2013, the Board invited public comment on proposed amendments to Regulation A (Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks) to implement sections 1101 and 1103 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376).1 The purpose of the proposed amendments was to implement the Dodd-Frank Act revisions to the Board's emergency lending authority in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that limit the use of this authority to the provision of liquidity through broadly-based facilities for solvent firms in a time of crisis. After careful review and consideration of the comments, the final rule adopted by the Board includes a number of changes and additional limitations to address concerns raised by commenters.

1 79 FR 615 (January 6, 2014).

Prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, section 13(3) provided that the Board may authorize a Federal Reserve Bank to extend credit to any individual, partnership, or corporation subject to four principal conditions. These conditions required that (1) credit be extended only in unusual and exigent circumstances; (2) credit be extended only if the Board authorizes the lending by the affirmative vote of at least five of its members; 2 (3) the lending Federal Reserve Bank obtain evidence before extending the credit that the borrower is unable to secure adequate credit from other banking institutions; and (4) the extension of credit be indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve Bank. This statutory authority to extend emergency credit to any person in unusual and exigent circumstances was enacted by Congress in 1932 to enable the Federal Reserve, as the nation's central bank, to provide liquidity in times of financial stress.3

2 A lesser number of votes is required in certain emergency situations where at least five members of the Board are unavailable or not in service. 12 U.S.C. 248(r).

3See H.R. Rep. No. 1777, at 19, 20 (1932) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 102-167, at 202 (1991) (Conf. Rep.).

Effective on July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) amended section 13(3) to limit this emergency lending authority to broad-based programs and facilities that relieve liquidity pressures in financial markets. To accomplish this, the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 13(3) to remove the general authority to lend to an individual, partnership, or corporation and to replace that general authority with the limited authority to extend emergency credit only to participants in a program or facility with broad-based eligibility designed for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system.4 In addition, the amendments to section 13(3) provide that a program or facility that is structured to remove assets from the balance sheet of a single and specific company, or that is established for the purpose of assisting a single and specific company avoid bankruptcy or resolution under a Federal or State insolvency proceeding would not be considered a program or facility with broad-based eligibility.5 The Dodd-Frank Act also prohibits lending under section 13(3) to insolvent borrowers, and requires that the Board establish policies and procedures that assign a value to all collateral for an emergency loan and that are designed to ensure that the collateral is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses. Moreover, section 13(3) was amended to provide that a program or facility may not be established without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposed certain publication and congressional reporting requirements regarding lending under section 13(3).

4 Public Law 13-203, Sec. 1101(a)(2): 124 STAT 2113(amending section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 343).

5 Public Law 13-203, Sec. 1101(a)(6): 124 STAT 2113(amending section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 343).

The draft rule proposed by the Board for public comment adopted all of the requirements and much of the specific statutory language contained in the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to section 13(3). The Board received fewer than a dozen comments on the proposed rule from financial institutions, policy institutions, individuals, and members of Congress.

While commenters generally expressed support for the proposed rule, most commenters recommended revisions to the proposed rule. Among the suggestions made by the commenters are that the rule:

• Provide a more specific definition of what it means for a program or facility to be “broad-based”;

• adopt a broader definition of insolvency for purposes of the prohibition on lending to insolvent borrowers;

• clarify that solvent firms may not borrow for the purpose of passing the proceeds of emergency loans on to insolvent firms;

• specify that emergency loans would only be made at a penalty rate that exceeds the market rate for such loans;

• include a specific timeline for evaluating whether an emergency lending program or facility should be terminated;

• limit the classes of collateral that can be accepted for emergency loans and require that the collateral be independently appraised; and

• require the Board to seek a joint resolution of Congress prior to granting an emergency loan.

The final rule adopts all of the limitations and revisions required by the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, in response to the comments, the Board has revised the final rule in a number of significant ways. In particular, as discussed below, the Board modified the final rule to:

• Further limit the definition of a broad-based program by including, in addition to the proposed requirement that the program be designed to provide liquidity to an identifiable market or sector of the financial system and not be for the purpose of assisting a specific firm to avoid bankruptcy or other resolution, a requirement that at least five persons be eligible to participate in the facility and a requirement that the facility not be designed to assist any number of identified firms to avoid bankruptcy or resolution;

• Expand the definition of insolvency to include potential borrowers that are generally not paying their undisputed debts as they become due during the 90 days preceding borrowing from the program, and potential borrowers that are otherwise determined by the Board or the lending Federal Reserve Bank to be insolvent, in addition to the proposal to identify as insolvent any person in a resolution or bankruptcy proceeding;

• Provide that loans may not be made to companies that are borrowing for the purpose of lending to insolvent companies;

• Specify that emergency loans must be extended at a penalty rate;

• Provide that the Board will make public and report to Congress a description of the market or sector of the financial system to which a program or facility with broad-based eligibility is intended to provide liquidity;

• Provide that the Board will review each program or facility at least every six months and that each program or facility will terminate within one year from the date of its first extension of credit or its latest renewal date unless the Board determines, by a vote of at least five members of the Board 6 and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to renew the program or facility; and,

6 A lesser number of votes is required in certain emergency situations where at least five members of the Board are unavailable or not in service. 12 U.S.C. 248(r).

• Clarify that, if a company or its representative is found to have made a knowing material misrepresentation regarding its solvency in obtaining emergency credit, the credit plus all applicable interest, fees, and penalties will become immediately due and payable, and the Federal Reserve will refer the matter to the relevant law enforcement authorities for appropriate action.

II. Section by Section Summary of Final Rule A. Section 201.4(d)—Emergency Credit for Others 1. Authorization To Extend Credit

Section 201.4(d)(1) of the final rule provides that, in unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board may, upon the affirmative vote of not less than five of its members,7 authorize any Federal Reserve Bank to extend credit under section 13(3) of the FRA through a program or facility with broad-based eligibility. This requirement mirrors the statutory requirement and is unchanged from the proposed rule. Conditions governing when a program or facility has broad-based eligibility are discussed below.

7 The rule permits the Board to authorize lending under the rule by a vote of fewer than five members in certain emergency situations permitted by statute where at least five members of the Board are not available or not in service. 12 U.S.C. 248(r).

In addition, section 201.4(d)(1) provides that any credit extended under section 13(3) of the FRA is subject to such other conditions as the Board may determine. These could include conditions that govern the timing of, collateral supporting, duration of, consideration for, terms of, counterparties to, and other conditions governing the extension of credit.

2. Approval of the Secretary of the Treasury

Section 201.4(d)(2) of the final rule provides that a program or facility under section 13(3) of the FRA may not be established without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. This condition implements a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Act.8

8 12 U.S.C. 343(3)(B)(iv).

One commenter suggested that, in addition to this approval, the Board should seek a joint resolution of Congress in connection with the establishment of a program or facility. While Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act imposed a similar requirement as a condition of certain emergency actions by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Congress did not adopt this requirement in connection with emergency lending under section 13(3) of the FRA. Instead, Congress established a number of other specific procedural requirements for emergency lending in section 1101 of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the requirement that the Secretary of the Treasury approve the establishment of a program or facility.

The final rule does not adopt a requirement that Congress ratify a lending program or facility. It is the exclusive prerogative of Congress to determine when and on what matters it will act. However, to further Congressional oversight of emergency lending facilities, the Board's final rule establishes a process by which the Board will promptly provide written notice to Congress of any emergency program or facility established under section 13(3) of the FRA.

3. Disclosure of Justification and Terms

Section 201.4(d)(3) of the final rule requires that the Board make publicly available, as soon as is reasonably practicable, and no later than 7 days after the Board authorizes the program or facility, a description of the program or facility, the unusual and exigent circumstances that exist, the intended effect of the program or facility, and the terms and conditions for participation in the program or facility. The final rule also provides that, within the same 7-day period, this information will be provided by the Board to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Some commenters suggested that the Board provide additional clarity regarding the scope of the market that must be eligible for a facility to have “broad-based eligibility.” While this is addressed below, as part of its response to this comment, the Board amended section 201.4(d)(3) of the final rule to require that the Board publicly disclose the market or sector of the financial system to which the program or facility is intended to provide liquidity. The Board added this disclosure requirement to help provide transparency regarding the broad-based nature of a program or facility at the time it is created.

4. Definition of Broad-Based Eligibility

The Dodd-Frank Act limits emergency lending under section 13(3) of the FRA to lending conducted through a program or facility “with broad-based eligibility.” 9 The draft implementing rule as originally proposed would have implemented this restriction in the Dodd-Frank Act by incorporating the language contained in the Dodd-Frank Act prohibiting lending for the purpose of removing assets from the balance sheet of “a single and specific company,” assisting “a single and specific company” to avoid bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding, or aiding a failing financial company.10

9 12 U.S.C. 343(3)(A).

10See 12 U.S.C. 343(3)(B)(iii).

Several commenters expressed concern that the reference in the proposed rule to “a single and specific company” could allow the Board to circumvent the limits imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act by grouping two or more bankrupt or failing firms in a program or facility. Some of these commenters suggested that the Board specify the number of eligible participants that would be required for a program or facility to have broad-based eligibility. One legislative proposal would provide that a program or facility is not broad-based unless at least five persons are eligible to participate in the program or facility.

The Board believes that the requirement that a program or facility have “broad-based eligibility” cannot be avoided by grouping two or more failing or bankrupt firms into a single facility. Thus, section 201.4(d)(4) of the final rule has been modified to make clear that an emergency program or facility has broad-based eligibility under the final rule only if three conditions are met. First, the program or facility must be designed for the purpose of providing liquidity to an identifiable market or sector of the financial system.

Second, the program or facility must not be designed for the purpose of assisting one or more specific companies to avoid bankruptcy or other resolution, including by removing assets from the balance sheet of the company or companies. The original proposal would have adopted the language in the Dodd-Frank Act that a program not be designed for the purpose of assisting “a single and specific company” avoid bankruptcy or resolution. The final rule has been changed to provide that a program or facility may not be designed to assist “one or more” specific companies to avoid bankruptcy or resolution. This change is intended to accent that a program or facility would not qualify as a broad-based program or facility if it is designed for the purpose of assisting any number of specific persons or entities to avoid resolution. A program or facility that is designed to remove assets from a single and specific firm's balance sheet to help the firm avoid bankruptcy or resolution such as was done with regard to Bear Stearns would not be permissible.

Third, the final rule provides that a program or facility would not be considered broad-based if fewer than five persons are eligible to participate in the program or facility. In this context, eligibility would be determined by qualification under all the terms and conditions established for participation in the program or facility.

Together, these limitations are designed to ensure that emergency credit programs and facilities are established only to fulfill the central bank's role as lender of last resort to the financial system and not as a lender to troubled firms seeking to avoid resolution or failure. For example, this approach would permit the Federal Reserve to establish programs or facilities like the Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which provided several thousand loans that provided liquidity to fund several billion dollars of student loans, car loans, small business loans and other loans in the securitization market; the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), which was a program with broad-based eligibility designed to provide liquidity to the commercial paper market; the Asset-backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF) and the Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF), which were programs with broad-based eligibility designed to provide liquidity to the money market fund sector; and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), which provided liquidity to all primary dealers in support of trading in the U.S. Government securities market.

However, these restrictions would not permit emergency lending to remove assets from a failing firm as was done in the case of the emergency loan to Bear Stearns, or to provide credit to prevent a firm from entering bankruptcy as was done in the case of the emergency credit facility established for AIG. Importantly, the final rule would not authorize a program or facility that sought to evade these limitations by grouping multiple failing or insolvent firms in a single program or facility. Thus, the revisions in the final rule would not permit the Federal Reserve to extend emergency credit in a case like the Bear Stearns or AIG situation simply by establishing a single program or facility for the purpose of providing credit to both Bear Stearns and AIG, or any other number of specific failing or insolvent firms.11

11 While the final rule requires that at least five persons be eligible to participate in a program or facility, that requirement is in addition to the restriction on establishing a program or facility for the purpose of providing credit to prevent the failure or resolution of any number of specific failing or insolvent persons, and would not allow a program or facility designed for the purpose of preventing the resolution or failure of more than five persons.

The Board is adopting section 201.4(d)(4)(iv) as proposed. That section authorizes the Board to determine the type of mechanism or vehicle used to extend credit, so long as the facility is broad-based. For example, liquidity facilities may extend credit directly to participants in those facilities in some cases, or through a special purpose vehicle in other cases. In any case, the extensions of credit would be subject to all of the requirements related to the provision of liquidity under section 13(3) of the FRA.

5. Definition of Insolvency

As noted above, section 1101 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Board to “establish procedures to prohibit borrowing from programs and facilities by borrowers that are insolvent.” Section 1101 also provides that a borrower “shall be considered insolvent” if the borrower “is in bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of [the Dodd-Frank Act], or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding.” 12 Some commenters suggested that section 1101 does not preclude the Board from identifying other situations where a person or entity has not yet entered into formal proceedings but nevertheless should be deemed to be insolvent and encouraged the Board to extend the definition of insolvency to apply to these circumstances.

12 124 Stat. 1376 at 2113-15.

As an initial matter, the final rule adopts the insolvency constraint as provided in the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 201.4(d)(5) provides that a Federal Reserve Bank may not extend credit through a program or facility established under section 13(3) of the FRA to any person or entity that is in bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding.

In response to these comments, the Board has amended the final rule to acknowledge that there may be situations that are not identified explicitly in the statute where the Board may determine that an entity is insolvent. In particular, the final rule provides that a person or entity is insolvent if the person or entity is generally not paying its undisputed debts as they become due during the 90 days preceding the date of borrowing under the program or facility. The final rule also provides that the Board or Federal Reserve Bank may determine, based on recent audited financial statements or other relevant documentation, that an entity is otherwise insolvent.

Section 201.4(d)(5) of the final rule requires the Board or the lending Federal Reserve Bank, prior to extending credit, to obtain evidence that the person or entity is not insolvent. As provided by the Dodd-Frank Act, the final rule provides that the Board and a Federal Reserve Bank may rely on a written certification from the person, the chief executive officer of the entity or another authorized officer of the entity, at the time the person or entity initially borrows under a program or facility, that the person or entity is not in bankruptcy or in a resolution or other insolvency proceeding. The Board has broadened this part of the final rule to require that the certification also state that the potential borrower has not failed to generally pay its undisputed debts as they become due during the 90 days preceding the date of borrowing.

The statute specifically permits the Board to rely on a certification to establish solvency. Use of a certification is particularly important in the context of programs and facilities with broad-based eligibility because these programs and facilities have the potential to involve numerous borrowers seeking credit in unusual periods of severe illiquidity. A binding certification aids in quickly and effectively making liquidity available on safe and reasonable terms in these difficult economic circumstances.

The final rule contains a number of provisions designed to ensure the continued accuracy of the certification. First, the final rule provides that a person or entity that submits a written certification must immediately notify the lending Federal Reserve Bank if the information in the certification changes. Section 201.4(d)(5)(vi) of the final rule also provides that a participant that is or has become insolvent would be prohibited from receiving any new extension of credit under the program or facility.

Moreover, to improve the reliability of a certification, the final rule provides that, if a participant or a person has provided a certification under section 201.4(d)(5) or (8) that includes a knowing material misrepresentation, all emergency credit extended to the borrower immediately becomes due and payable, and the Federal Reserve will promptly refer the matter to appropriate law enforcement authorities for action under applicable criminal and civil law.

Some commenters expressed concern that third-party conduits would be used to evade any insolvency restrictions in the rule by passing borrowed funds on to an entity that is insolvent. Section 201.4(d)(5)(i) of the final rule provides that a Federal Reserve Bank may not extend credit through a program or facility to any person that is borrowing for the purpose of lending the proceeds of the loan to an insolvent entity.

Another commenter suggested that the final rule clarify whether conservatorships are eligible to participate in broad-based facilities. Section 13(3) as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits lending to an insolvent borrower or to aid a failing firm. As a general matter, conservators are appointed to conserve a failing company's assets.13 Accordingly, a conservatorship and a company in conservatorship would not be eligible to borrow from a program or facility established under section 13(3) of the FRA.

13See 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(5).

6. Indorsement or Other Security

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, section 13(3) provided that any extension of credit under that section must be “indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank.” 14 The Dodd-Frank Act retained this provision of the original statute and added two further requirements. First, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Board to adopt policies and procedures “designed to ensure . . . that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses.” 15 Second, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the Board's policies and procedures “require that a Federal Reserve bank assign, consistent with sound risk management practices and to ensure protection for the taxpayer, a lendable value to all collateral for a loan executed” under section 13(3) of the FRA.16

14See 12 U.S.C. 343, 47 Stat. 715.

15 12 U.S.C. 343(3)(B)(1).

16Id.

Protecting taxpayers from losses as a result of emergency lending has always been an important concern for the Board, and the Board notes that the extensions of credit under the emergency lending programs it authorized during the recent financial crisis were all repaid in full with interest. The proposed rule incorporated the new statutory requirements from the Dodd-Frank Act into Regulation A.

Some commenters argued that the Board should limit the types of collateral the Federal Reserve Banks may accept in support of an emergency credit. Several commenters argued that the Federal Reserve should establish haircuts for collateral accepted by programs and facilities that extend emergency credit.

The final rule continues to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses. As proposed and as adopted in the final rule, section 201.4(d)(6) provides that all credit extended under emergency lending programs and facilities must be indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the lending Federal Reserve Bank.

The final rule also requires the Federal Reserve Bank, no later than at the time the credit is initially extended, to assign a lendable value to all collateral for the program or facility, consistent with sound risk management practices and to ensure protection for the taxpayer. The Federal Reserve Banks have long assigned a lendable value to collateral at the time credit is extended. Much of the collateral accepted as security for emergency lending has a readily available market value. In connection with assigning a lendable value to other collateral, Reserve Banks readily take into account independent appraisals of the collateral that may be available. In all cases, the Reserve Bank applies appropriate discounts or “haircuts” to the value of the collateral. The haircuts applied to collateral are described in the Federal Reserve Discount Window & Payment System Risk Collateral Margins Table and the Federal Reserve Collateral Guidelines, available on the Federal Reserve Discount Window & Payment System Risk Web site.17 The Federal Reserve Banks also consider the financial strength of the borrower, the presence of any indorsement, and other factors, in determining whether the credit is satisfactorily secured.

17http://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/index.cfm.

The Board believes that these provisions allow the Federal Reserve to impose collateral and other requirements to protect the taxpayer from loss and address the statutory requirement for policies and procedures that are designed to ensure protection for the taxpayer.

7. Penalty Rate

Section 13(3) of the FRA has always provided that emergency credit extended under that section shall be at rates established in accordance with the provisions of section 14(d) of the FRA. Commenters suggested that the Board amend the proposed rule to require that extensions of emergency credit be subject to a penalty rate of interest.

The practice of the Federal Reserve in extending emergency credit has been to set the relevant interest rate at a penalty rate designed to encourage borrowers to repay emergency credit as quickly as possible once the unusual and exigent circumstances that justify the program or facility have receded and financial conditions have normalized. This approach has also ensured that the taxpayer is compensated by a higher interest rate than would be charged during normal times for the increased risk taken in extending emergency credit. Indeed, while the Federal Reserve adopted different rates for the various broad-based facilities that it established during the recent financial crisis, in each case, the rate set for the facility exceeded the rate for comparable instruments during normal times. As a result of this practice, emergency broad-based credit facilities established by the Federal Reserve under section 13(3) terminated and wound down as economic conditions normalized.

In keeping with this practice, section 201.4(d)(7) of the final rule provides that a penalty rate will be imposed on emergency extensions of credit. Because the appropriate interest rate depends on a number of factors, such as the duration of the credit, the collateral requirements, and the other terms and conditions for the credit, it is not feasible to establish a single penalty rate for all emergency facilities or to set penalty rates in advance of designing the facility. Consequently, the final rule provides that the interest rate for credit extended under section 13(3) must be at a level that is a premium to the market rate in normal circumstances, affords liquidity in unusual and exigent circumstances, and encourages repayment and discourages use of the program as unusual and exigent circumstances normalize.

Section 201.4(d)(7)(iii) of the final rule sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Board will take into account when establishing the penalty rate. These factors include the condition of the affected markets and the financial system generally, the historical rate of interest for loans of comparable terms and maturity during normal times, the purpose of the program or facility, the risk of repayment, the collateral supporting the credit, the duration, terms and amount of the credit, and other factors relevant to ensuring the taxpayer is appropriately compensated for the risks associated with the emergency credit. The final rule also explains that the rate on emergency credit under section 13(3) may be set by auction or other method consistent with section 14(d) of the FRA. Such an auction could be structured with a minimum stop out rate to ensure that the resulting rate would satisfy the requirements of a penalty rate.

8. Evidence Regarding Unavailability of Adequate Credit Accommodation

Section 13(3) has always required that a Federal Reserve Bank, prior to extending credit to any participant in a program or facility under that section, obtain evidence that such participant is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions. The proposed rule incorporated this requirement and provided that this evidence may include evidence based on economic conditions in the market or markets addressed by the program or facility or evidence obtained from other sources, including facility or market participants and certifications from borrowers. In response to comments, the Board has amended the final rule to add as relevant evidence a certification from the participant that it is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions.

9. Termination of Program or Facility

The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the Board's policies and procedures with respect to section 13(3) extensions of credit be designed to ensure that any such program is terminated in a timely and orderly fashion.18 In order to address this requirement, the proposed rule would have required the Board periodically to review the existence of unusual and exigent circumstances; the extent of usage of the program or facility; the extent to which the continuing authorization of the program or facility facilitates restoring or sustaining confidence in financial markets; economic and market conditions; the functioning of financial markets; the ongoing need for the liquidity support provided by such program or facility; and such other factors as the Board may deem to be appropriate.

18 Dodd-Frank Act Section 1101(a)(6).

Some commenters suggested that a specific time period for review be adopted. The Board has amended the draft proposal to adopt this suggestion. Section 201.4(d)(9)(i) of the final rule provides that a program or facility will terminate no later than one year after the date of the first extension of credit under the program or facility. The rule allows the Board to renew the program or facility if it finds, by a vote of five members,19 that unusual and exigent circumstances continue to exist, and the Secretary of the Treasury has approved the renewal. Each renewal may extend the program or facility for not more than one year. The final rule requires the Board promptly to report publicly and to the relevant congressional committees any renewal of a program or facility under section 13(3).

19 See 12 U.S.C. 248(r).

The final rule has been amended to provide that the Board will, not less frequently than every six months, review whether each emergency lending program or facility should be terminated. The final rule provides that the Board may terminate an emergency lending program or facility at any time, and will terminate an emergency program or facility upon finding that conditions no longer warrant continuation of the program or facility.

The final rule retains the provisions of the proposed rule providing factors for the Board to consider in conducting this review, with some additional modifications. Specifically, the final rule provides that the Board will consider such factors as the continued existence of unusual and exigent circumstances; the extent of usage of the program or facility; the extent to which the continuing authorization of the program or facility facilitates restoring or sustaining confidence in the identified financial markets; the ongoing need for the liquidity support provided by such program or facility; and other appropriate factors.

One commenter suggested that the final rule include procedures for the orderly unwinding of a program or facility, including how the Board will cover any associated losses. The Board expects, as it has with past facilities, to evaluate the appropriate methods for an orderly unwinding of any emergency credit facility at the time the facility is unwound.

10. Reporting Requirements

The Dodd-Frank Act contains detailed reporting requirements with respect to section 13(3) extensions of credit.20 The proposed rule set forth the statutory requirements as enacted, and no comments were received on those provisions of the proposed rule. Therefore, the Board is adopting these provisions as proposed. The final rule provides that the Board will comply with 12 U.S.C. 248(s) and 12 U.S.C. 343(3)(C) pursuant to their terms.

20 Dodd-Frank Act Sections 1101(a)(6) and 1103(b).

11. No Obligation To Extend Credit

Section 201.4(d)(11) of the proposed rule provided that Federal Reserve Banks have no obligation to extend credit to any particular person or entity through an emergency lending program or facility. This provision mirrors the provision applicable to lending to depository institutions set forth in section 201.3(b) of Regulation A. No comments were received on this provision, and the Board is adopting it as proposed.

12. Participation in Programs and Facilities and Vendor Selection

The final rule reflects existing legal requirements that participation in any program or facility under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act will not be limited or conditioned on the basis of any legally prohibited basis, such as the race, religion, color, gender, national origin, age or disability of the borrower. Moreover, in accordance with existing law, the selection of third-party vendors used in the design, marketing or implementation of any program or facility under this subsection will be without regard to the race, religion, color, gender, national origin, age or disability of the vendor or any principal shareholder of the vendor, and, to the extent possible and consistent with law, will involve a process designed to support equal opportunity and diversity.

13. Short-Term Emergency Credit Secured Solely by United States or Agency Obligations

Section 201.4(d)(13) of the proposed rule retained, but relocated, a provision in current Regulation A that authorizes a Federal Reserve Bank to extend credit under section 13(13) of the FRA if the collateral used to secure the credit consists solely of obligations of, or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or an agency of the United States. Section 201.4(d)(13) of the final rule retains the provision that extensions of credit under this section be at a rate above the highest rate in effect for advances to depository institutions. As set forth in section 13(13) of the FRA, section 201.4(d)(13) of the final rule also provides that credit extended under this provision may not be extended for a term exceeding 90 days.

One commenter suggested that section 201.4(d)(13) should be revised to limit the number of times a loan issued pursuant to its provisions may be rolled over. However, the commenter did not provide a suggested limit on roll overs and acknowledged that there would need to be exceptions made to any limit imposed. Instead of imposing such a limit, the Board will rely on its ability to assess whether unusual and exigent circumstances continue to exist at the time that the loan is renewed in order to appropriately limit roll overs of such loans. Therefore, the Board is retaining section 201.4(d)(13) as written.

B. Section 201.3(b)—No Obligation To Make Advances or Discounts

Section 201.3(b) of the final rule reflects a technical change to conform the language of that section with the language of section 201.4(d)(11) of the final rule.

III. Administrative Law Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) requires an agency either to provide an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with a proposed rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required or to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Board solicited public comment on the rule in a notice of proposed rulemaking. The Board did not receive any comments regarding burden to small banking organizations.

In accordance with section 1101 and 1103 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board is amending Regulation A (12 CFR part 201 et seq.) to establish policies and procedures for emergency lending under section 13(3) of the FRA. The reasons and justification for the final rule are described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. The Board does not believe that the final rule duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with any other Federal rules. Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), a “small entity” includes those firms within the “Finance and Insurance” sector with asset sizes that vary from $75.5 million or less in assets to $550 million or less in assets. The Board believes that the Finance and Insurance sector constitutes a reasonable universe of firms for these purposes because such firms generally engage in activities that are financial in nature and the vast majority of emergency loans under section 13(3) during the recent financial crisis were extended to such firms.

As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the final rule would apply to any participant in an emergency lending program or facility with broad-based eligibility. To the extent that small entities are participants in these programs or facilities, they would be receiving extensions of emergency credit from Federal Reserve Banks. It is not possible to ascertain at this time the number of small entities that might participate in these programs and facilities were they to be authorized, or what requirements would be imposed on them if they do so. At a minimum, it is likely that participants would be required to pay interest on credit extended to them and to keep records of the use of proceeds of such extensions of credit. However, the positive economic impact of receiving such a credit is likely to substantially outweigh any economic burden of participating in the program or facility.

In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that the final rule would have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

Certain provisions of the final rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for the Board is 7100-NEW. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB. The final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The reporting requirements are found in section 201.4(d)(5)(iv)(A). The Board indicated in the proposed rule that the reporting requirements associated with the Regulation A would be minimal and no PRA burden was taken. The Board received no comments on this aspect of the proposal. However, based on the comments received for clarifying the proposed rule to prohibit solvent firms from passing the proceeds of emergency loans on to insolvent firms and adopting a broader definition of insolvency, the Board will take reporting burden for this section.

The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer (1) by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (2) by facsimile to 202-395-6974; or (3) by email to: [email protected], Attention, Federal Reserve Board Agency Desk Officer.

Proposed Information Collection

Title of Information Collection: Reporting Requirements Associated with Regulation A (Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks).

Frequency of Response: Event-generated.

Affected Public: Businesses, individuals or other persons.

Respondents: Any participant in a program or facility with broad-based eligibility.

Abstract: Sections 1101 and 1103 of the Dodd-Frank Act amend the emergency lending authorities provided in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The amendments require the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to establish by regulation policies and procedures with respect to such emergency lending. The purpose of the amendments to Regulation A in this final rule is to implement the Dodd-Frank Act revisions to the Board's emergency lending authority in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that limit the use of this authority to the provision of liquidity through broadly-based facilities for solvent firms in a time of crisis.

Reporting Requirements

Section 201.4(d)(5)(iv)(A) provides that a Federal Reserve Bank may rely on a written certification from the person or from the chief executive officer or other authorized officer of the entity, at the time the person or entity initially borrows under the program or facility, that the person or entity is not in bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of Public Law 111-203 (12 U.S.C. 5381 et seq.) or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding, and has not failed to generally pay its undisputed debts as they become due during the 90 days preceding the date of borrowing under the program or facility, and is not borrowing for the purpose of lending the proceeds of the loan to a person or entity that is insolvent.

Estimated Burden per Response: 5 hours.

Number of Respondents: 10 (The Federal Reserve is not currently aware of any respondents, but for purposes of the PRA we will assume 10. If or when we receive any certifications we intend to update this data upon the next renewal of the information collection).

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 50 hours.

C. Invitation for Comments on Use of Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.21 The Board received no comments on these matters and believes that the final rule is written plainly and clearly.

21 12 U.S.C. 4809.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 201

Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 201 (Regulation A) as follows:

PART 201—EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS (REGULATION A) 1. The authority citation for part 201 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 248(i)-(j) and (s), 343 et seq., 347a, 347b, 347c, 348 et seq., 357, 374, 374a, and 461.

2. Section 201.3 paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
§ 201.3 Extensions of credit generally.

(b) No obligation to make advances or discounts. This section does not entitle any person or entity to obtain any credit or any increase, renewal or extension of maturity of any credit from a Federal Reserve Bank.

§ 201.109 [Amended]
3. In § 201.109, redesignate footnotes 4 through 6 as footnotes 6 through 8.
§ 201.108 [Amended]
4. In § 201.108, redesignate footnotes 2 and 3 as footnotes 4 and 5.
§ 201.51 [Amended]
5. In § 201.51, redesignate footnote 1 as footnote 3. 6. Section 201.4 paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
§ 201.4 Availability and terms of credit.

(d) Emergency credit for others—(1) Authorization to extend credit. In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members,1 may authorize any Federal Reserve Bank, subject to such conditions and during such periods as the Board may determine, to extend credit to any participant in a program or facility with broad-based eligibility established and operated in accordance with this paragraph (d).

1 Unless fewer are authorized pursuant to section 11(r) of the Federal Reserve Act. 12 U.S.C. 248(r).

(2) Approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. A program or facility may not be established under this paragraph (d) without obtaining the prior approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) Disclosure of justification and terms. As soon as is reasonably practicable, and no later than 7 days after a program or facility is authorized under this paragraph (d), the Board and the authorized Federal Reserve Bank or Federal Reserve Banks, as appropriate, will make publicly available a description of the program or facility, a description of the market or sector of the financial system to which the program or facility is intended to provide liquidity, a description of the unusual and exigent circumstances that exist, the intended effect of the program or facility, and the terms and conditions for participation in the program or facility. In addition, within the same 7-day period, the Board will provide a copy of this information to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives.

(4) Broad-based eligibility. (i) A program or facility established under this paragraph (d) must have broad-based eligibility in accordance with terms established by the Board.

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (d), a program or facility has broad-based eligibility only if the program or facility is designed to provide liquidity to an identifiable market or sector of the financial system;

(iii) A program or facility will not be considered to have broad-based eligibility for purposes of this paragraph (d) if:

(A) The program or facility is designed for the purpose of assisting one or more specific companies avoid bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 12 U.S.C. 5381 et seq.), or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding, including by removing assets from the balance sheet of one or more such company;

(B) The program or facility is designed for the purpose of aiding one or more failing financial companies; or

(C) Fewer than five persons or entities would be eligible to participate in the program or facility.

(iv) A Federal Reserve Bank may extend credit through a program or facility with broad-based eligibility established under this paragraph (d) through such mechanism or vehicle as the Board determines would facilitate the extension of such credit.

(5) Insolvency. (i) A Federal Reserve Bank may not extend credit through a program or facility established under this paragraph (d) to any person or entity that is insolvent or to any person or entity that is borrowing for the purpose of lending the proceeds of the loan to a person or entity that is insolvent.

(ii) Before extending credit through a program or facility established under this paragraph (d) to any person or entity, the Federal Reserve Bank must obtain evidence that the person or entity is not insolvent.

(iii) A person or entity is “insolvent” for purposes of this paragraph (d) if:

(A) The person or entity is in bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of Public Law 111-203 (12 U.S.C. 5381 et seq.) or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding;

(B) The person or entity is generally not paying its undisputed debts as they become due during the 90 days preceding the date of borrowing under the program or facility; or

(C) The Board or Federal Reserve Bank otherwise determines that the person or entity is insolvent.

(iv) For purposes of meeting the requirements of this paragraph (d)(5), the Board or Federal Reserve Bank, as relevant, may rely on:

(A) A written certification from the person or from the chief executive officer or other authorized officer of the entity, at the time the person or entity initially borrows under the program or facility, that the person or entity is not in bankruptcy, resolution under Title II of Public Law 111-203 (12 U.S.C. 5381 et seq.) or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding, and has not failed to generally pay its undisputed debts as they become due during the 90 days preceding the date of borrowing under the program or facility;

(B) Recent audited financial statements of the person or entity; or

(C) Other information that the Board or the Federal Reserve Bank may determine to be relevant.

(v) A person or officer (or successor of either) that submits a written certification under this subparagraph must immediately notify the lending Federal Reserve Bank if the information in the certification changes.

(vi) Upon a finding by the Board or a Federal Reserve Bank that a participant, including a participant that has provided a certification under this paragraph (d)(5), is or has become insolvent, that participant is not eligible for any new extension of credit from a program or facility established under this paragraph (d) until such time as the Board or a Federal Reserve Bank determines that such participant is no longer insolvent.

(vii) If a participant or person has provided a certification under this paragraph (d)(5) or paragraph (d)(8)(ii) of this section that includes a knowing material misrepresentation in the certification, all extensions of credit made pursuant to this paragraph (d) that are outstanding to the relevant participant shall become immediately due and payable, and all accrued interest, fees and penalties shall become immediately due and payable. The Board or the lending Federal Reserve Bank will also refer the matter to the relevant law enforcement authorities for investigation and action in accordance with applicable criminal and civil law.

(6) Indorsement or other security. (i) All credit extended under a program or facility established under this paragraph (d) must be indorsed or otherwise secured, in each case, to the satisfaction of the lending Federal Reserve Bank.

(ii) In determining whether an extension of credit under any program or facility established under this paragraph (d) is secured to its satisfaction, a Federal Reserve Bank must, prior to or at the time the credit is initially extended, assign a lendable value to all collateral for the program or facility, consistent with sound risk management practices and to ensure protection for the taxpayer.

(7) Penalty rate and fees. (i) The Board will determine the interest rate to be charged on any credit extended through a program or facility established under this section in accordance with this paragraph (d) and the provisions of section 14, subdivision (d) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 357). The Board may determine the interest rate by auction or such other method as the Board determines in accordance with section 14, subdivision (d) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 357).

(ii) The interest rate established for credit extended through a program or facility established under this section will be set at a penalty level that:

(A) Is a premium to the market rate in normal circumstances;

(B) Affords liquidity in unusual and exigent circumstances; and

(C) Encourages repayment of the credit and discourages use of the program or facility as the unusual and exigent circumstances that motivated the program or facility recede and economic conditions normalize.

(iii) In determining the rate, the Board will consider the condition of affected markets and the financial system generally, the historical rate of interest for loans of comparable terms and maturity during normal times, the purpose of the program or facility, the risk of repayment, the collateral supporting the credit, the duration, terms and amount of the credit, and any other factor that the Board determines to be relevant to ensuring that the taxpayer is appropriately compensated for the risks associated with the credit extended under the program or facility and the purposes of this paragraph (d) are fulfilled.

(iv) In addition to the rate established and charged under this paragraph (d)(7), the Board may require the payment of any fees, penalties, charges or other consideration the Board determines to be appropriate to protect and appropriately compensate the taxpayer for the risks associated with the credit extended under the program or facility.

(8) Evidence regarding unavailability of adequate credit accommodation. (i) Each lending Federal Reserve Bank must obtain evidence that, under the prevailing circumstances, participants in a program or facility established under this paragraph (d) are unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions.

(ii) Evidence required under this paragraph (d)(8) may be based on economic conditions in the market or markets intended to be addressed by the program or facility, a written certification from the person or from the chief executive officer or other authorized officer of the entity at the time the person or entity initially borrows under the program or facility, or other evidence from participants or other sources.

(9) Termination of program or facility. (i) A program or facility established under this paragraph (d) shall cease extending new credit no later than one year after the date of the first extension of credit under the program or facility or the date of any extension of the program or facility by the Board under paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section.

(ii) A program or facility may be renewed upon the vote of not less than five members of the Board 2 that unusual and exigent circumstances continue to exist and the program or facility continues to appropriately provide liquidity to the financial system, and the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

2 Unless fewer are authorized pursuant to section 11(r) of the Federal Reserve Act. 12 U.S.C. 248(r).

(iii) The Board shall make the disclosures required under paragraph (d)(3) of this section to the public and the relevant congressional committees no later than 7 days after renewing a program or facility under this paragraph (d)(9).

(iv) The Board may at any time terminate a program or facility established under this paragraph (d). To ensure that the program or facility under this paragraph (d) is terminated in a timely and orderly fashion, the Board will periodically review, no less frequently than once every 6 months, the existence of unusual and exigent circumstances, the extent of usage of the program or facility, the extent to which the continuing authorization of the program or facility facilitates restoring or sustaining confidence in the identified financial markets, the ongoing need for the liquidity support provided by such program or facility, and such other factors as the Board may deem to be appropriate. The Board will terminate lending under a program or facility promptly upon finding that conditions no longer warrant the continuation of the program or facility or that continuation of the program or facility is no longer appropriate.

(v) A program or facility that has been terminated will cease extending new credit and will collect existing loans pursuant to the applicable terms and conditions.

(10) Reporting requirements. The Board will comply with the reporting requirements of 12 U.S.C. 248(s) and 12 U.S.C. 343(3)(C) pursuant to their terms.

(11) No obligation to extend credit. This paragraph (d) does not entitle any person or entity to obtain any credit or any increase, renewal or extension of maturity of any credit from a Federal Reserve Bank.

(12) Participation in programs and facilities and vendor selection. (i) Participation in any program or facility under this paragraph (d) shall not be limited or conditioned on the basis of any legally prohibited basis, such as the race, religion, color, gender, national origin, age or disability of the borrower.

(ii) The selection of any third-party vendor used in the design, marketing or implementation of any program or facility under this paragraph (d) shall be without regard to the race, religion, color, gender, national origin, age or disability of the vendor or any principal shareholder of the vendor, and, to the extent possible and consistent with law, shall involve a process designed to support equal opportunity and diversity.

(13) Short-term emergency credit secured solely by United States or agency obligations. In unusual and exigent circumstances and after consultation with the Board, a Federal Reserve Bank may extend credit under section 13(13) of the Federal Reserve Act if the collateral used to secure such credit consists solely of obligations of, or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or an agency thereof. Prior to extending credit under this paragraph (d)(13), the Federal Reserve Bank must obtain evidence that credit is not available from other sources and failure to obtain such credit would adversely affect the economy. Credit extended under this paragraph (d)(13) may not be extended for a term exceeding 90 days, must be extended at a rate above the highest rate in effect for advances to depository institutions as determined in accordance with section 14(d) of the Federal Reserve Act, and is subject to such limitations and conditions as provided by the Board.

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 30, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-30584 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 105 Standards of Conduct and Employee Restrictions and Responsibilities CFR Correction

In Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 34, in § 105.401, in paragraph (b)(3), remove “Director of Human Resources” and add in its place “Chief Human Capital Officer”.

[FR Doc. 2015-31738 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 120 Business Loans CFR Correction

In Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 307, in § 120.802, in the definition of Priority CDC, remove the first instance of “504” and add “504” before the word “program”.

[FR Doc. 2015-31739 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 136 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Small Business Administration CFR Correction In Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of January 1, 2015, on pages 658 and 659, in § 136.170, remove “Director, OEEOC” each time it appears in paragraphs (h)(1) and (j)(1) and (2) and add, in its place, “AA/EEOCCR”. [FR Doc. 2015-31740 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 140 Debt Collection CFR Correction

In Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 665, in § 140.11, in paragraph (i)(3)(ii), remove the term “the SBA” and add “the Agency” in its place.

[FR Doc. 2015-31745 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1139; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-4] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Los Angeles, CA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension at Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. The FAA found it necessary to establish the airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for arriving and departing aircraft at the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, February 4, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E surface area airspace at Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA.

History

On October 16, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace designated as an extension at Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA, (80 FR 62509). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous comment was received supporting the proposal.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to surface area airspace at Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. The airspace extends from the 3-mile radius of Whiteman Airport to 6.6 miles northwest of the airport for the safety and management of IFR operations.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area AWP CA E4 Los Angeles, CA [New] Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA (Lat. 34°15′34″ N., long. 118°24′48″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.1 miles each side of the 304° bearing from the Whiteman Airport, extending from the 3-mile radius of Whiteman Airport to 6.6 miles northwest of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 10, 2015. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-31645 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 902 [Docket No. 110819516-5999-03] RIN 0648-BB02 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Smoothhound Shark Management Measures AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule; effective date of OMB control numbers.

SUMMARY:

NMFS announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of collection-of-information requirements contained in regulations pertaining to the U.S. Atlantic smoothhound shark fisheries in a final rule that was published on November 24, 2015. The intent of this final rule is to inform the public of the effectiveness of the collection-of-information requirements associated with the commercial smoothhound shark permit.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on March 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments regarding burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637 or email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Atlantic sharks, including smoothhound sharks, are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the authority to promulgate regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006, which detailed management measures for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) fisheries, including for the Atlantic shark fisheries. The implementing regulations for the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are at 50 CFR part 635.

The final rule implementing Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 9) was published on November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73128) and included measures to bring smoothhound sharks under Federal management. Among these measures was a commercial smoothhound shark permit requirement for Federal smoothhound shark fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. At the time of publication of the final rule implementing Amendment 9, collection-of-information requirements associated with the smoothhound shark permit were pending approval by OMB.

OMB approved the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule on December 10, 2015. Additionally, the application for the smoothhound shark permit is now available.

Classification Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule makes effective a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of this information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0205. This collection is revised to add a commercial smoothhound shark permit in association with Amendment 9 to the HMS FMP (Amendment 9). Among other things, Amendment 9 implements a commercial smoothhound shark permit requirement for vessels retaining smoothhound sharks caught in Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This permit requirement will aid in identifying the participants in the smoothhound shark fishery to facilitate information gathering for fishery management and quota monitoring, facilitate enforcement of fishing regulations, and help maintain a sustainable fishery. The commercial smoothhound shark permitting requirement will become effective on March 15, 2016. NMFS estimates up to 500 applicants for the new permit with each response taking 30 minutes. Thus, this revision will add 500 respondents, 500 responses, and 250 burden hours to fill out and submit an application for a commercial smoothhound shark permit. Additionally, a $25 application fee will result in a total of $12,500 additional cost to OMB Control Number 0648-0205.

Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action because notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This action simply provides notice of OMB's approval of the reporting requirements at issue, which has already occurred, and renders those requirements effective. Thus, this action does not involve any further exercise of agency discretion and no comment received at this time would impact any decision by NMFS or OMB. In addition, the public has had the opportunity to comment on both the substance of the reporting requirements, at the time NMFS adopted them, and on NMFS' request to OMB for revision of the information collection. The reporting requirements at issue were detailed in a proposed rule on which NMFS accepted public comment. The reporting provisions in 50 CFR 635.4 were initially published at 79 FR 56047 on September 18, 2014, with comments accepted until November 14, 2014, and published as a final rule at 80 FR 73128 on November 24, 2015. An additional opportunity for public comment at this point would not be meaningful, and would be duplicative.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are inapplicable.

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 902

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 14, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 as follows:

Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENT UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows: Authority:

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), under the entry “50 CFR”, add an entry in alphanumeric order for “635.4(e)(4)” to read as follows:
§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(b) * * *

CFR part or section where the information collection
  • requirement is located
  • Current OMB control No. (all numbers begin with 0648-)
    *    *    *    *    * 50 CFR *    *    *    *    * 635.4(e)(4) −0205 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-31782 Filed 12-15-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 556 and 558 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0002] New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Nitarsone AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the withdrawal of approval of three new animal drug applications (NADAs) providing for the use of nitarsone in medicated feed for chickens and turkeys. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the following NADAs that provide for the use of nitarsone in medicated feed for chickens and turkeys because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:

    File No. Product name 21 CFR
  • Section
  • 007-616 HISTOSTAT 50 (nitarsone) Type A Medicated Article 558.369 141-088 HISTOSTAT 50 (nitarsone)/BMD (bacitracin methylene disalicylate) 558.369 141-132 HISTOSTAT 50/ALBAC (bacitracin zinc) 558.369

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice that approval of NADAs 007-616, 141-088, and 141-132, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective December 31, 2015. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these voluntary withdrawals of approval.

    This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Parts 556

    Animal drugs, Food.

    21 CFR Parts 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 556 and 558 are amended as follows:

    PART 556—TOLERANCES FOR RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS IN FOOD 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 556 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.

    § 556.60 [Removed]
    2. Remove § 556.60. PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.

    § 558.4 [Amended]
    4. In § 558.4(d), in the “Category II” table, remove the entry for “Nitarsone”.
    § 558.76 [Amended]
    5. In § 558.76, remove and reserve paragraph (d)(3)(xiii).
    § 558.78 [Amended]
    6. In § 558.78, remove and reserve paragraph (d)(3)(vii).
    § 558.369 [Removed]
    7. Remove § 558.369.
    Dated: December 11, 2015. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31827 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0002] New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Nitarsone AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of three new animal drug applications (NADAs) providing for the use of nitarsone in medicated feed for chickens and turkeys. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.

    DATES:

    Withdrawal of approval is effective December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the following NADAs that provide for the use of nitarsone in medicated feed for chickens and turkeys because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:

    File No. Product name 21 CFR
  • Section
  • 007-616 HISTOSTAT 50 (nitarsone) Type A Medicated Article 558.369 141-088 HISTOSTAT 50 (nitarsone)/BMD (bacitracin methylene disalicylate) 558.369 141-132 HISTOSTAT 50/ALBAC (bacitracin zinc) 558.369

    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with 21 CFR 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application, notice is given that approval of NADAs 007-616, 141-088, and 141-132, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective December 31, 2015.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of these applications.

    Dated: December 11, 2015. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31828 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9745] RIN 1545-BL43 Minimum Value of Eligible Employer-Sponsored Plans and Other Rules Regarding the Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations on the health insurance premium tax credit enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, as amended by the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011, and the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. These final regulations affect individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges, sometimes called Marketplaces) and claim the health insurance premium tax credit, and Exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals and employers.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These regulations are effective on December 18, 2015.

    Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.36B-1(o) and 1.36B-6(g).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions on the premium tax credit, Shareen Pflanz, (202) 317-4718; for minimum value, Andrew Braden, (202) 317-7006 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This document contains final regulations amending the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to the health insurance premium tax credit. Section 36B was enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care Act). Final regulations under section 36B (TD 9590) were published on May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30377) (2012 section 36B final regulations). On May 3, 2013, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-125398-12) was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 25909). Written comments responding to the proposed regulations were received. The comments have been considered in connection with these final regulations and are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov or on request. No public hearing was requested or held. After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted, in part, as amended by this Treasury decision. Some rules proposed under REG-125398-12 on the minimum value of eligible employer-sponsored plans have been reserved and will be finalized separately under REG-119850-15. Two paragraphs on minimum value have been re-proposed, see REG-143800-14 (80 FR 52678) (2015 proposed minimum value regulations), are finalized in part, and will be finalized in part under REG-143800-14.

    Explanation of Revisions and Summary of Comments 1. Definition of Modified Adjusted Gross Income

    Section 36B(d)(2) provides that a taxpayer's household income includes the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer and the members of the taxpayer's tax family who are required to file an income tax return. The 2012 section 36B final regulations provide that, in computing household income, whether a family member must file a tax return is determined without regard to section 1(g)(7). Under section 1(g)(7), a parent may elect to include a child's gross income in the parent's gross income if certain requirements are met.

    The proposed regulations removed “without regard to section 1(g)(7)” from the 2012 section 36B final regulations because that language implied that the child's gross income is included in both the parent's adjusted gross income and the child's adjusted gross income in determining household income. Thus, the proposed regulations clarified that when a parent makes an election under section 1(g)(7), household income includes the child's gross income included on the parent's return only. These final regulations adopt that rule without change and clarify that the modified adjusted gross income of a parent who makes the section 1(g)(7) election includes the child's modified adjusted gross income. Thus, the parent's modified adjusted gross income includes not only the child's gross income but also the child's tax-exempt interest and nontaxable Social Security income, which are excluded from gross income but included in modified adjusted gross income in computing household income. (A parent may not make a section 1(g)(7) election if the child has income excluded under section 911, the third type of nontaxable income included in modified adjusted gross income.)

    2. Wellness Program Incentives

    Under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v), an eligible employer-sponsored plan is affordable for an employee and related individuals only if the portion of the annual premium the employee must pay for self-only coverage does not exceed the required contribution percentage of the taxpayer's household income. Under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii), an eligible employer-sponsored plan provides minimum value only if the plan's share of the total allowed cost of benefits is at least 60 percent and, under the 2015 proposed minimum value regulations, the plan provides substantial coverage of inpatient hospital services and physician services.

    The proposed regulations provide that, for an employee eligible to participate in a wellness program, the affordability and minimum value of eligible employer-sponsored coverage are determined by assuming that each employee fails to satisfy the requirements of a wellness program, except the requirements of a nondiscriminatory wellness program related to tobacco use. Thus, the affordability and minimum value of a plan that charges a higher initial premium or higher cost-sharing for tobacco users are determined based on the premium or cost-sharing that is charged to non-tobacco users or to tobacco users who complete the related wellness program, such as attending smoking cessation classes.

    Identical rules, addressing only an employee's required contribution for purposes of determining affordability, were proposed in regulations under section 5000A (REG-141036-13, 79 FR 4302, January 27, 2014) (section 5000A proposed regulations). The preamble to regulations finalizing the section 5000A proposed regulations (TD 9705, 79 FR 70464, November 26, 2014) (section 5000A final regulations) discusses the comments received on the proposed regulations under section 36B, except comments discussed in the next paragraph, and additional comments received on the section 5000A proposed regulations (79 FR 70466). Comments discussed in the preamble to the section 5000A proposed regulations are not discussed again in this preamble.

    Because the standard for affordability for individuals eligible for coverage by reason of a relationship to an employee (related individuals) under section 5000A is different than the standard under section 36B, the section 5000A final regulations do not address certain comments on the treatment of wellness program incentives in determining affordability for related individuals. These commenters requested that wellness incentives related to tobacco use be treated as unearned for related individuals. The commenters expressed concern that treating wellness incentives related to tobacco use as earned in all cases unfairly penalizes related individuals for an employee's tobacco use. However, section 36B(c)(2)(C) provides that the affordability of coverage for related individuals under section 36B is based on the cost of self-only coverage. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this comment.

    Thus, after considering all the comments, these final regulations, like the section 5000A final regulations, retain the rules in the proposed regulations that wellness incentives unrelated to tobacco use are treated as unearned and wellness incentives related to tobacco use are treated as earned in determining affordability. For purposes of both the section 5000A final regulations and these final regulations, nondiscriminatory wellness programs include both participatory and health-contingent wellness programs. Both the section 5000A final regulations and these final regulations also clarify that (1) a wellness incentive that includes any component unrelated to tobacco use is treated as unearned (however, as stated in the preamble to the section 5000A final regulations, if there is an incentive for completing a program unrelated to tobacco use and a separate incentive for completing a program related to tobacco use, then the incentive related to tobacco use may be treated as earned), and (2) the term wellness program incentives has the same meaning as the term reward in regulations issued by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Labor as well as the Treasury Department, see § 54.9802-1(f), 29 CFR 2590.702(f), and 45 CFR 146.121(f). These final regulations also apply the rules described in this section of the preamble for purposes of determining minimum value.

    3. Employer Contributions to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA)

    The proposed regulations provide that amounts newly made available in the current plan year under an HRA that is integrated with eligible employer-sponsored coverage and that an employee may use to pay premiums are counted toward the employee's required contribution for purposes of determining affordability. Amounts newly made available in the current plan year under an HRA that is integrated with eligible employer-sponsored coverage and that an employee may use only to reduce cost-sharing for medical expenses covered by the primary plan count toward a plan's minimum value percentage.

    The comments on the proposed regulations are discussed in the section 5000A final regulations. After considering all the comments, both the section 5000A final regulations and these final regulations (1) cross-reference Notice 2013-54 (2013-40 IRB 287, see § 601.601(d)) for guidance on the requirements for an HRA to be integrated with eligible employer-sponsored coverage, (2) clarify that amounts newly made available under an HRA reduce an employee's required contribution (or, for purposes of section 36B, count towards providing minimum value) if the HRA would have been integrated with eligible employer-sponsored coverage had the employee enrolled in the primary plan, (3) clarify that an HRA is taken into account in determining affordability (and minimum value for purposes of section 36B) only if the HRA and the primary eligible employer-sponsored coverage are offered by the same employer, (4) clarify that HRA contributions are taken into account for affordability and not minimum value if an employee may use the HRA contributions to pay premiums for the primary plan only or to pay cost-sharing or benefits not covered by the primary plan in addition to premiums, and (5) clarify that employer contributions to an HRA reduce an employee's required contribution (or count towards providing minimum value for section 36B purposes) only to the extent the amount of the annual contribution is required under the terms of the plan or is otherwise determinable within a reasonable time before the employee must decide whether to enroll. For more information on how contributions to an HRA are taken into account for purposes of section 4980H(b) and related reporting under section 6056, see Notice 2015-87, 2015-52 IRB, released simultaneously with these final regulations.

    Additional regulations will finalize other rules on minimum value in the proposed regulations.

    4. Employer Contributions to Cafeteria Plans (Flex Contributions)

    The preamble to the section 5000A proposed regulations requested comments on how employer contributions under a section 125 cafeteria plan (flex contributions) that employees may not opt to receive as a taxable benefit should be taken into account in determining an employee's required contribution for purposes of the affordability of coverage. The section 5000A final regulations discussed the comments received and adopted the rule that an employee's required contribution is reduced by employer contributions under a section 125 cafeteria plan that (1) may not be taken as a taxable benefit, (2) may be used to pay for minimum essential coverage, and (3) may be used only to pay for medical care within the meaning of section 213. These final regulations adopt this rule for purposes of determining affordability under section 36B.

    For more information on the effect of flex contributions and other similar arrangements on affordability for purposes of sections 36B, 5000A, and related consequences under section 4980H, see Notice 2015-87, released simultaneously with these final regulations.

    5. Post-Employment Coverage

    Section 1.36B-2(c)(3)(iv) provides that an individual who may enroll in continuation coverage required under Federal law or a State law that provides comparable continuation coverage is eligible for minimum essential coverage only for months that the individual is enrolled in the coverage. The proposed regulations provide that this rule applies only to former employees and extend the rule to retiree coverage. Accordingly, an individual who may enroll in retiree coverage is eligible for minimum essential coverage only for the months the individual is enrolled in the coverage.

    Commenters opined that the continuation and retiree coverage rules should apply to individuals eligible for the coverage by reason of a relationship to an employee, for example, the spouse of a retired employee. In response to these comments, the final regulations clarify that an individual who may enroll in continuation coverage or retiree coverage because of a relationship to a former employee is eligible for the coverage only for the months the individual is enrolled in the coverage.

    Commenters suggested that the rule for continuation coverage should apply to current employees eligible for continuation coverage as a result of reduced hours. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Eligible employer-sponsored coverage for current employees does not present the same administrability issues as for former employees. Current employees with continuation coverage should be subject to the same general rules on eligibility for employer-sponsored coverage as other current employees. Although employees may be subject to a higher required contribution for continuation coverage than is required for other eligible employer-sponsored coverage, for purposes of the premium tax credit, employees are eligible for eligible employer-sponsored coverage only if the coverage is both affordable and provides minimum value. Thus, current employees offered continuation coverage, like other current employees, may be eligible for the premium tax credit if the coverage offered either is not affordable or does not provide minimum value.

    6. Newborns, Adopted Children, and Other Individuals Enrolled Midmonth

    Regulations at 45 CFR 155.420(d)(2)(i) require issuers to provide coverage to a newborn child enrolled in a qualified health plan effective on the date of birth. Under section 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) and § 1.36B-3(c)(1)(i), a month is a coverage month for an individual only if the individual is enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Exchange as of the first day of the month. Under § 1.36B-3(d), the monthly premium assistance amount is determined, in part, by the adjusted monthly premium for the applicable second lowest cost silver (benchmark) plan (benchmark plan premium). The proposed regulations provide that a child enrolled in a qualified health plan in the month of the child's birth, adoption, or placement with the taxpayer for adoption or in foster care (birth month) is treated as enrolled as of the first day of the month.

    Some commenters interpreted the coverage month rule for newborns as requiring that issuers must provide coverage for a newborn as of the first day of the month.

    Other commenters noted that applying a new adjusted monthly premium as of the first of the month, thus increasing the premium assistance amount for the month, is inconsistent with HHS regulations that provide that the amount of advance credit payments (which approximates the premium assistance amount) does not change until the first day of the month following the birth month.

    No changes are made to the final regulations to reflect these comments. The rules treat certain individuals as enrolled as of the first day of the month for purposes of the premium tax credit to conform with the general rules for coverage months but do not require issuers to enroll the individuals as of the first day of the month. Furthermore, HHS regulations published on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42321) removed the rule providing that advance credit payments do not change until the month following a birth or other event for which a midmonth enrollment is allowed.

    Under 45 CFR 155.420(b)(2)(i), Exchanges must ensure that a taxpayer eligible to enroll an individual in coverage may choose for the individual's coverage to be effective as of the individual's date of birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care or as of the first day of the following month. Similarly, for individual's placed with a taxpayer by court order, 45 CFR 155.420(b)(2)(v) provides that Exchanges must allow the individual's coverage to be effective as of the date the court order is effective. Accordingly, the final regulations provide that an individual is treated as enrolled as of the first day of the month of birth, adoption, or placement in adoption or foster care if the individual's enrollment is effective as of the date of birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care, or on the effective date of a court order. The final regulations use the term individual instead of child to align with HHS regulations relating to midmonth enrollments.

    The proposed regulations provide that the adjusted monthly premium is determined as if all members of the coverage family for that month were enrolled in a qualified health plan for the entire month. The intent of this rule was to specify that the adjusted monthly premium is determined as of the first day of a coverage month and is not prorated for midmonth changes in enrollment or eligibility for other minimum essential coverage. Accordingly, an individual who enrolls midmonth but who is treated as enrolled as of the first day of the month is a member of the coverage family (if all other requirements are met) in determining the adjusted monthly premium for that month. For other coverage family changes, the adjusted monthly premium does not change until the following month. The final regulations clarify these rules by providing that the term coverage family means the members of a taxpayer's family for whom a month is a coverage month (which requires being enrolled on the first day of the month) and that the adjusted monthly premium is determined as of the first day of a coverage month.

    7. Partial Months of Coverage

    The proposed regulations provide that the premium assistance amount for a coverage month is prorated by the number of days of coverage when a qualified health plan is terminated before the last day of a month and the issuer reduces or refunds a portion of the monthly premium.

    The proposed rule for computing a prorated premium assistance amount has proven to be complex and may be difficult to administer. Accordingly, the final regulations provide that the premium assistance amount for a termination month is the lesser of (1) the enrollment premiums charged (reduced by any amounts that were refunded) and (2) the difference between the benchmark plan premium and contribution amount for the full month. The final regulations clarify that this computation also applies to a month an individual is enrolled in coverage effective on the date of the individual's birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care, or on the effective date of a court order. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate publishing rules requiring Exchanges to report under section 36B(f)(3) for partial months of coverage the amount of enrollment premiums charged and advance credit payments made for the days of coverage and the benchmark plan premium for a full month of coverage.

    Effective/Applicability Date

    These final regulations apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information requirement on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these final regulations are Andrew Braden, Arvind Ravichandran, and Stephen J. Toomey of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.36B-0 is amended by: 1. Revising the introductory text. 2. Revising the entries for §§ 1.36B-2(c)(3)(iv) and 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v)(A)(4). 2. Adding entries for §§ 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v)(A)(5) and (6). 3. Revising the entries for §§ 1.36B-3(c)(2) and (3). 4. Adding entries for §§ 1.36B-3(c)(4), 1.36B-3(d)(1) and (2), 1.36B-3(d)(2)(i) and (ii) and 1.36B-6.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.36B-0 Table of contents.

    This section lists the captions contained in §§ 1.36B-1 through 1.36B-6.

    § 1.36B-2 Eligibility for premium tax credit.

    (c) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Post-employment coverage.

    (v) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (4) Wellness program incentives.

    (5) Employer contributions to health reimbursement arrangements.

    (6) Employer contributions to cafeteria plans.

    § 1.36B-3 Computing the premium assistance credit amount.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Certain individuals enrolled during a month.

    (3) Premiums paid for a taxpayer.

    (4) Examples.

    (d) * * *

    (1) In general.

    (2) Partial month of coverage.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Examples.

    § 1.36B-6 Minimum value.

    (a) In general.

    (b) MV standard population.

    (c) MV percentage.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Wellness program incentives.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Example.

    (3) Employer contributions to health savings accounts.

    (4) Employer contributions to health reimbursement arrangements.

    (5) Expected spending adjustments for health savings accounts and health reimbursement arrangements.

    (d) Methods for determining MV.

    (e) Scope of essential health benefits and adjustment for benefits not included in MV Calculator.

    (f) Actuarial certification.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Membership in American Academy of Actuaries.

    (3) Actuarial analysis.

    (4) Use of MV Calculator.

    (g) Effective/applicability date.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Exception.

    Par. 3. Section 1.36B-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii)(B), and (n) to read as follows:
    § 1.36B-1 Premium tax credit definitions.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) A taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income (including the modified adjusted gross income of a child for whom an election under section 1(g)(7) is made for the taxable year);

    (ii) * * *

    (B) Are required to file a return of tax imposed by section 1 for the taxable year.

    (n) Rating area. The term rating area has the same meaning as used in section 2701(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(a)(2)) and 45 CFR 147.102(b).

    Par. 4. Section 1.36B-2 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(iv) and (c)(3)(v)(A)(4). 2. Adding paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(A)(5) and (6) and (c)(3)(v)(D), Example 9. 3. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(vi).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.36B-2 Eligibility for premium tax credit.

    (c) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Post-employment coverage. A former employee (including a retiree), or an individual related (within the meaning of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section) to a former employee, who may enroll in eligible employer-sponsored coverage or in continuation coverage required under Federal law or a State law that provides comparable continuation coverage is eligible for minimum essential coverage under this coverage only for months that the former employee or related individual is enrolled in the coverage.

    (v) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (4) Wellness program incentives. Nondiscriminatory wellness program incentives offered by an eligible employer-sponsored plan that affect premiums are treated as earned in determining an employee's required contribution for purposes of affordability of an eligible employer-sponsored plan to the extent the incentives relate exclusively to tobacco use. Wellness program incentives that do not relate to tobacco use or that include a component unrelated to tobacco use are treated as not earned for this purpose. For purposes of this section, the term wellness program incentive has the same meaning as the term reward in § 54.9802-1(f)(1)(i) of this chapter.

    (5) Employer contributions to health reimbursement arrangements. Amounts newly made available for the current plan year under a health reimbursement arrangement that an employee may use to pay premiums, or may use to pay cost-sharing or benefits not covered by the primary plan in addition to premiums, reduce the employee's required contribution if the health reimbursement arrangement would be integrated, as that term is used in Notice 2013-54 (2013-40 IRB 287) (see § 601.601(d) of this chapter), with an eligible employer-sponsored plan for an employee enrolled in the plan. The eligible employer-sponsored plan and the health reimbursement arrangement must be offered by the same employer. Employer contributions to a health reimbursement arrangement reduce an employee's required contribution only to the extent the amount of the annual contribution is required under the terms of the plan or otherwise determinable within a reasonable time before the employee must decide whether to enroll in the eligible employer-sponsored plan.

    (6) Employer contributions to cafeteria plans. Amounts made available for the current plan year under a cafeteria plan, within the meaning of section 125, reduce an employee's or a related individual's required contribution if—

    (i) The employee may not opt to receive the amount as a taxable benefit;

    (ii) The employee may use the amount to pay for minimum essential coverage; and

    (iii) The employee may use the amount exclusively to pay for medical care, within the meaning of section 213.

    (D) * * *

    Example 9.

    Wellness program incentives. (i) Employer X offers an eligible employer-sponsored plan with a nondiscriminatory wellness program that reduces premiums by $300 for employees who do not use tobacco products or who complete a smoking cessation course. Premiums are reduced by $200 if an employee completes cholesterol screening within the first six months of the plan year. Employee B does not use tobacco and the cost of his premiums is $3,700. Employee C uses tobacco and the cost of her premiums is $4,000.

    (ii) Under paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(4) of this section, only the incentives related to tobacco use are counted toward the premium amount used to determine the affordability of X's plan. C is treated as having earned the $300 incentive for attending a smoking cessation course regardless of whether C actually attends the course. Thus, the required contribution for determining affordability for both Employee B and Employee C is $3,700. The $200 incentive for completing cholesterol screening is treated as not earned and does not reduce their required contribution.

    (vi) Minimum value. See § 1.36B-6 for rules for determining whether an eligible employer-sponsored plan provides minimum value.

    Par. 5. Section 1.36B-3 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (b)(2). 2. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) and adding paragraph (c)(2). 3. Revising paragraph (d). 4. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e). 5. Revising paragraphs (f)(4), (g)(2), and (j)(1) and (3). 6. Removing the language “(d)(1)” everywhere it appears in paragraphs (h), (j), and (k), and adding the language “(d)(1)(i)” in its place and removing the language “(d)(2)” everywhere it appears in paragraphs (h) and (j) and adding the language “(d)(1)(ii)” in its place.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.36B-3 Computing the premium assistance credit amount.

    (b) * * *

    (2) The term coverage family means, in each month, the members of a taxpayer's family for whom the month is a coverage month.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Certain individuals enrolled during a month. If an individual enrolls in a qualified health plan and the enrollment is effective on the date of the individual's birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care, or on the effective date of a court order, the individual is treated as enrolled as of the first day of that month for purposes of this paragraph (c).

    (d) Premium assistance amount—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the premium assistance amount for a coverage month is the lesser of—

    (i) The premiums for the month for one or more qualified health plans in which a taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer's family enrolls (enrollment premiums); or

    (ii) The excess of the adjusted monthly premium for the applicable benchmark plan (benchmark plan premium) over 1/12 of the product of a taxpayer's household income and the applicable percentage for the taxable year (the taxpayer's contribution amount).

    (2) Partial month of coverage—(i) In general. If a qualified health plan is terminated before the last day of a month or an individual is enrolled in coverage effective on the date of the individual's birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care, or on the effective date of a court order, the premium assistance amount for the month is the lesser of—

    (A) The enrollment premiums for the month (not including any amounts that were refunded); or

    (B) The excess of the benchmark plan premium for a full month of coverage over the full contribution amount for the month.

    (ii) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this paragraph (d)(2).

    Example 1.

    (i) Taxpayer R is single and has no dependents. R enrolls in a qualified health plan with a monthly premium of $450. The difference between R's benchmark plan premium and contribution amount for the month is $420. R's premium assistance amount for a coverage month with a full month of coverage is $420 (the lesser of $450 and $420).

    (ii) The issuer of R's qualified health plan is notified that R died on September 20. The issuer terminates coverage as of that date and refunds the remaining portion of the September enrollment premiums ($150) for R's coverage.

    (iii) Under this paragraph (d)(2), R's premium assistance amount for September is the lesser of the enrollment premiums for the month ($300 ($450—$150)) or the difference between the benchmark plan premium for a full month of coverage and the full contribution amount for the month ($420). R's premium assistance amount for September is $300, the lesser of $420 and $300.

    Example 2.

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (d)(2)(ii), except that the qualified health plan issuer does not refund any enrollment premiums for September. Under this paragraph (d)(2), R's premium assistance amount for September is $420, the lesser of $450 and $420.

    Example 3.

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (d)(2)(ii), except that the difference between R's benchmark plan premium and contribution amount for a month is $275. Accordingly, R's premium assistance amount for a coverage month with a full month of coverage is $275 (the lesser of $450 and $275). Under this paragraph (d)(2), R's premium assistance amount for September remains $275, the lesser of $300 and $275.

    (e) * * * The adjusted monthly premium for a coverage month is determined as of the first day of the month.

    (f) * * *

    (4) Family members residing at different locations. The benchmark plan premium determined under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section for family members who live in different States and enroll in separate qualified health plans is the sum of the premiums for the applicable benchmark plans for each group of family members living in the same State.

    (g) * * *

    (2) Applicable percentage table.

    Household income percentage of Federal poverty line Initial
  • percentage
  • Final
  • percentage
  • Less than 133% 2.0 2.0 At least 133% but less than 150% 3.0 4.0 At least 150% but less than 200% 4.0 6.3 At least 200% but less than 250% 6.3 8.05 At least 250% but less than 300% 8.05 9.5 At least 300% but not more than 400% 9.5 9.5

    (j) Additional benefits—(1) In general. If a qualified health plan offers benefits in addition to the essential health benefits a qualified health plan must provide under section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022), or a State requires a qualified health plan to cover benefits in addition to these essential health benefits, the portion of the premium for the plan properly allocable to the additional benefits is excluded from the monthly premiums under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. Premiums are allocated to additional benefits before determining the applicable benchmark plan under paragraph (f) of this section.

    (3) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this paragraph (j):

    Example 1.

    (i) Taxpayer B enrolls in a qualified health plan that provides benefits in addition to essential health benefits (additional benefits). The monthly premiums for the plan in which B enrolls are $370, of which $35 is allocable to additional benefits. B's benchmark plan premium (determined after allocating premiums to additional benefits for all silver level plans) is $440, of which $40 is allocable to additional benefits. B's monthly contribution amount, which is the product of B's household income and the applicable percentage, is $60.

    (ii) Under this paragraph (j), B's enrollment premiums and the benchmark plan premium are reduced by the portion of the premium that is allocable to the additional benefits provided under that plan. Therefore, B's monthly enrollment premiums are reduced to $335 ($370 − $35) and B's benchmark plan premium is reduced to $400 ($440 − $40). B's premium assistance amount for a coverage month is $335, the lesser of $335 (B's enrollment premiums, reduced by the portion of the premium allocable to additional benefits) and $340 (B's benchmark plan premium, reduced by the portion of the premium allocable to additional benefits ($400), minus B's $60 contribution amount).

    Example 2.

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (j)(3), except that the plan in which B enrolls provides no benefits in addition to the essential health benefits required to be provided by the plan. Thus, under paragraph (j) of this section, B's benchmark plan premium ($440) is reduced by the portion of the premium allocable to additional benefits provided under that plan ($40). B's enrollment premiums ($370) are not reduced under this paragraph (j). B's premium assistance amount for a coverage month is $340, the lesser of $370 (B's enrollment premiums) and $340 (B's benchmark plan premium, reduced by the portion of the premium allocable to additional benefits ($400), minus B's $60 contribution amount).

    Par. 6. Section 1.36B-6 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.36B-6 Minimum value.

    (a) In general. An eligible employer-sponsored plan provides minimum value (MV) only if—

    (1) The plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided to an employee (the MV percentage) is at least 60 percent; and

    (2) [Reserved]

    (b) MV standard population. [Reserved]

    (c) MV percentage—(1) In general. [Reserved]

    (2) Wellness program incentives—(i) In general. Nondiscriminatory wellness program incentives offered by an eligible employer-sponsored plan that affect deductibles, copayments, or other cost-sharing are treated as earned in determining the plan's MV percentage if the incentives relate exclusively to tobacco use. Wellness program incentives that do not relate to tobacco use or that include a component unrelated to tobacco use are treated as not earned for this purpose. For purposes of this section, the term wellness program incentive has the same meaning as the term reward in § 54.9802-1(f)(1)(i) of this chapter.

    (ii) Example. The following example illustrates the rules of this paragraph (c)(2):

    Example.

    (i) Employer X offers an eligible employer-sponsored plan that reduces the deductible by $300 for employees who do not use tobacco products or who complete a smoking cessation course. The deductible is reduced by $200 if an employee completes cholesterol screening within the first six months of the plan year. Employee B does not use tobacco and his deductible is $3,700. Employee C uses tobacco and her deductible is $4,000.

    (ii) Under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, only the incentives related to tobacco use are considered in determining the plan's MV percentage. C is treated as having earned the $300 incentive for attending a smoking cessation course regardless of whether C actually attends the course. Thus, the deductible for determining for the MV percentage for both Employees B and C is $3,700. The $200 incentive for completing cholesterol screening is disregarded.

    (3) Employer contributions to health savings accounts. Employer contributions for the current plan year to health savings accounts that are offered with an eligible employer-sponsored plan are taken into account for that plan year towards the plan's MV percentage.

    (4) Employer contributions to health reimbursement arrangements. Amounts newly made available for the current plan year under a health reimbursement arrangement that would be integrated within the meaning of Notice 2013-54 (2013-40 IRB 287), see § 601.601(d) of this chapter, with an eligible employer-sponsored plan for an employee enrolled in the plan are taken into account for that plan year towards the plan's MV percentage if the amounts may be used to reduce only cost-sharing for covered medical expenses. A health reimbursement arrangement counts toward a plan's MV percentage only if the health reimbursement arrangement and the eligible employer-sponsored plan are offered by the same employer. Employer contributions to a health reimbursement arrangement count for a plan year towards the plan's MV percentage only to the extent the amount of the annual contribution is required under the terms of the plan or otherwise determinable within a reasonable time before the employee must decide whether to enroll in the eligible employer-sponsored plan.

    (5) Expected spending adjustments for health savings accounts and health reimbursement arrangements. [Reserved]

    (d) Methods for determining MV. [Reserved]

    (e) Scope of essential health benefits and adjustment for benefits not included in MV Calculator. [Reserved]

    (f) Actuarial certification. [Reserved]

    (1) In general. [Reserved]

    (2) Membership in American Academy of Actuaries. [Reserved]

    (3) Actuarial analysis. [Reserved]

    (4) Use of MV Calculator. [Reserved]

    (g) Effective/applicability date—in general. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, this section applies for taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

    (2) Exception. [Reserved]

    Par. 7. Section 1.6011-8 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1.6011-8 Requirement of income tax return for taxpayers who claim the premium tax credit under section 36B.

    (a) Requirement of return. A taxpayer for whom advance payments of the premium tax credit under section 36B are made in a taxable year must file an income tax return for that taxable year on or before the due date for the return (including extensions of time for filing).

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: December 11, 2015 Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-31866 Filed 12-16-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 [Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009] RIN 1218-AC76 Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; confirmation of effective date; approval of collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 18, 2015 OSHA published in the Federal Register a direct final rule that streamlined provisions on State Plans. OSHA stated in that document that it would withdraw the companion proposed rule and confirm the effective date of the final rule if the Agency received no significant adverse comments on the direct final rule or the proposal. Since OSHA received no comments on the direct final rule or the proposal, the Agency now confirms that the direct final rule became effective as a final rule on October 19, 2015. The proposed rule and the direct final rule also requested comments on the collections of information contained in State Plan regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved those collections of information.

    DATES:

    The effective date for the direct final rule that published on August 18, 2015 (80 FR49897) is confirmed as October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Confirmation of the effective date: On August 18, 2015, OSHA published a direct final rule in the Federal Register amending OSHA regulations to remove the detailed descriptions of State Plan coverage, purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information. In addition, this document moved most of the general provisions of subpart A of part 1952 into part 1902, where the general regulations on State Plan criteria are found. It also amended several other OSHA regulations to delete references to part 1952, which will no longer apply. A companion proposed rule was also published on that date.

    In the direct final rule, OSHA stated that it would publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and withdraw the proposed rule if it received no significant adverse comments on the direct final rule or the proposal. OSHA received no comments on the direct final rule or the proposed rule. Accordingly, OSHA is confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and the proposed rule is withdrawn.

    Approval of collections of information: The proposed rule and the direct final rule also contained a request for comments on an Information Collection Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), which covers all collections of information in OSHA State Plan regulations. OMB received no comments. OMB has approved the revised collections of information and is retaining OMB control number 1218-0247 for these requirements. The expiration date for the approval is April 30, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956

    Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety and health.

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this final rule. OSHA is issuing this direct final rule under the authority specified by Sections 8(c)(1), 8(c)(2), and 8(g)(2) and 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657 (c)(1), (c)(2), and (g)(2) and 667) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 11, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31878 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1087] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to perform preventive maintenance and critical repairs that are essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge, and is scheduled in the winter when there is less impact on navigation. This deviation allows the bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for 21 days.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m., February 8, 2016 until 5 p.m., February 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1087] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for 21 days from 8 a.m., February 8, 2016 to 5 p.m., February 28, 2016, while preventive maintenance and critical repairs that are essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge are performed.

    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that the drawbridge shall open on signal.

    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The bridge cannot open in case of emergency.

    Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 13 (Mile 522.5 UMR) and Lock No. 21 (Mile 324.9 UMR) from 7 a.m. January 4, 2016 until 12 p.m., March 4, 2016 will preclude any significant navigation demands for the drawspan opening. In addition, Army Corps Lock No. 14 (Mile 493.3 UMR) and Lock No. 17 (Mile 437.1 UMR) will be closed from 7 a.m. December 14, 2015 until 12 p.m. March 2, 2016.

    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31856 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1070] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO) Morgan railroad bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform structural repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed on six consecutive weekends.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on Saturday, January 9 to 7 p.m. February 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1070] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NJTRO Morgan railroad bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 3 feet at mean high water and 8 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.709(b).

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

    The bridge owner, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.

    Under this temporary deviation, the NJTRO Morgan railroad bridge shall remain in the closed position for six consecutive weekends from 6 a.m. on Saturday to 7 p.m. on Sunday on the following dates: January 9 and 10; January 23 and 24; January 30 and 31; February 6 and 7; February 20 and 21; and February 27 and 28, 2016.

    The draw shall maintain its normal operating schedule at all other times.

    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at all times. The bridge may be opened in the event of an emergency.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31842 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1048] Safety Zone; Circle Line Sightseeing Fireworks, Liberty Island, Upper New York Bay, Manhattan, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified date and time. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP).

    DATES:

    The regulation for the safety zone described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on December 31, 2015 from 11:30 p.m. to 12:40 a.m. on January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Daniel Vazquez, Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4154, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified date and time as indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

    Table 1 1. Circle Line Sightseeing Fireworks; Liberty Island Safety Zone; 33 CFR 165.168(a)(1) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°41′16.5″ N., 074°02′23″ W. (NAD 1983), approximately 360 yards east of Liberty Island. This Safety Zone is a 180-yard radius from the barge.
  • • Date: December 31, 2015-January 1, 2016.
  • • Time: 11:30 p.m.-12:40 a.m.
  • Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, a vessel may not enter the regulated area unless given express permission from the COTP or the designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: December 1, 2015. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31910 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1030] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in support of a visit by very important persons (VIPs). The security zone begins on the navigable waters in Kailua Bay on the west side of a line connecting Kapoho Point and continuing at a bearing of 227° (true) as well as the nearby channel from its entrance near Kapoho Point to a point along the channel 150 yards to the south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge. This security zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the VIPs.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 6:00 a.m. (HST) on December 18, 2015, through 10:00 p.m. (HST) on January 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-1030. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-1030 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Nicolas Jarboe, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu; telephone (808) 541-4359, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking TFR Temporary final rule Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code VIP Very Important Person II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 those procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The details of the VIPs' travel to Hawaii were not made available to the Coast Guard in sufficient time to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect the VIPs; therefore, a 30-day notice period is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the security zone's intended objectives of protecting the VIPs, mitigating potential terroristic acts, enhancing public and maritime safety and security. Publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the occasion would occur before a notice-and-comment rulemaking could be completed, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the VIPs. The COTP finds that this temporary security zone must be effective by December 18, 2015 to ensure the safety of the VIPs during their visit to the Kailua Bay area on the eastern coast of Oahu, Hawaii. The Coast Guard received the official request on November 1, 2015.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. From December 18, 2015 through January 3, 2016, VIPs of the United States of America plans to visit the Kailua Bay area on Oahu, Hawaii. The security zone begins on the navigable waters in Kailua Bay on the west side of a line connecting Kapoho Point and continuing at a bearing of 227° (true) as well as the nearby channel from its entrance near Kapoho Point to a point along the channel 150 yards to the south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu (COTP) has determined that there is reasonable potential for terroristic acts associated with the VIPs visit to the Kailua Bay area, and that a security zone is necessary to ensure their safety.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    This temporary final rule establishes a security zone from 6:00 a.m. (HST) on December 18, 2015, through 10:00 p.m. (HST) on January 03, 2016. The security zone area is located within the COTP Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and covers all U.S. navigable waters in the Kailua Bay on the west side of a line connecting Kapoho Point and continuing at a bearing of 227° (true) to 21°25′11″ N., 157°44′39″ W.; as well as the nearby channel from its entrance near Kapoho Point to a point along the channel 150 yards to the south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge. This zone extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. This zone will include the navigable waters of the channel beginning at a point 21°25′04″ N., 157°44′54″ W., then extending to 21°25′27″ N., 157°44′21″ W. (Kapoho Point) including all the waters to the west of a straight line to 21°25′11″ N., 157°44′39″ W., and the extending back to the original point 21°25′04″ N., 157°44′54″ W.

    One (1) yellow buoy and two (2) shore-side markers will be placed in proximity of the security zone along the security zone boundary and one (1) orange boom will be placed at the channel boundary south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge as visual aids for mariners and public to approximate the zone. An illustration of the security zone will be made available on www.regulations.gov in docket for this rulemaking, USCG-2015-1030. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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. The Coast Guard expects the economical impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the limited geographic area affected by it, and the lack of commercial vessel traffic affected by the zone. 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.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    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 security 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    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.

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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.

    F. Environment

    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. 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 ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    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:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    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.

    2. Add § 165.T14-1030 to read as follows:
    § 165.T14-1030 Security Zone; Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI.

    (a) Location. The security zone area is located within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and covers all U.S. navigable waters in the Kailua Bay on the west side of a line connecting Kapoho Point and continuing at a bearing of 227° (true) to 21°25′11″ N., 157°44′39″ W.; as well as the nearby channel from its entrance near Kapoho Point to a point along the channel 150 yards to the south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge. This zone extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. This zone will include the navigable waters of the channel beginning at a point 21°24′56″ N., 157°44′58″ W., then extending to 21°25′27″ N., 157°44′21″ W. (Kapoho Point) including all the waters to the west of a straight line to 21°25′11″ N., 157°44′39″ W., and extending back to the original point 21°24′56″ N., 157°44′58″ W.

    (b) Effective period. 6:00 a.m. (HST) on December 18 2015, through 10:00 p.m. (HST) on January 3, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones contained in § 165.33 of subpart D of this part apply to the security zone created by this temporary regulations.

    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in this part.

    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP.

    (3) Persons desiring to transit the security zones identified in paragraph (a) of this section may contact the COTP at the Command Center telephone number (808) 842-2600 and (808) 842-2601, fax (808) 842-2642 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to seek permission to transit the zones. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while in the zone.

    (4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the security zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Notice of enforcement. The COTP will cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this section to be made by verbal broadcasts and written notice to mariners and the general public.

    (e) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the COTP to assist in enforcing the security zones described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    Dated: November 30, 2015. S.N. Gilreath, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31885 Filed 12-15-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258; FRL-9940-32-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport of Ozone AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On June 28, 2010, the State of Idaho 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.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, [email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background Information II. Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background Information

    On October 30, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho's June 28, 2010 submittal as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 66862). 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 30, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

    II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Idaho's June 28, 2010 submittal as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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 et seq.);

    • 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 et seq.);

    • 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).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 8, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart N—Idaho 2. In § 52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.670 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or non-attainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS State-wide 6/28/2010 12/18/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    [FR Doc. 2015-31778 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 243 Friday, December 18, 2015 Proposed Rules SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 127 RIN 3245-AG75 Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business—Certification AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking input and comments on certification of Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSB) in connection with the Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program (WOSB Program). SBA is planning to amend its regulations to implement section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (2015 NDAA). Section 825 of the 2015 NDAA removed the statutory authority allowing WOSBs and EDWOSBs to self-certify. SBA intends to draft regulations to implement the statutory changes.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG75, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    For mail, paper, disk, or CD/ROM submissions: Brenda J. Fernandez, Procurement Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Brenda J. Fernandez, Procurement Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

    SBA will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, please submit the information to: Brenda J. Fernandez, Procurement Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review the information and make the final determination on whether it will publish the information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda J. Fernandez, Procurement Analyst, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205-7337; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The WOSB Program, set forth in section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(m), authorizes Federal contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs) for Federal contracts in certain industries. Congress amended the WOSB Program with section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (December 19, 2014) (2015 NDAA), which included language granting contracting officers the authority to award sole source awards to WOSBs and EDWOSBs and shortening the time period for SBA to conduct a required study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented in federal contracting. In addition, section 825 of the 2015 NDAA amended the Small Business Act to create a requirement that a firm be certified as a WOSB or EDWOSB by a Federal Agency, a State government, SBA, or a national certifying entity approved by SBA. 15 USCS 637(m)(2)(E).

    On September 14, 2015, SBA published in the Federal Register a final rule to implement the sole source authority for WOSBs and EDWOSBs and the revised timeline for SBA to conduct a study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented. 80 FR 55019. SBA did not implement the certification portion of section 825 of the 2015 NDAA in this final rule because its implementation is more complicated, could not be accomplished by merely incorporating the statutory language into the regulations, and would have delayed the implementation of the sole source authority unnecessarily. SBA notified the public that because it did not want to delay the implementation of the WOSB sole source authority by combining it with changes in the certification requirements, SBA decided to implement the certification requirement through a separate rulemaking. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) seeks to solicit public comments to assist SBA in drafting a viable proposed rule to implement a WOSB/EDWOSB certification program.

    SBA seeks to better understand what the public believes is the most appropriate way to structure a WOSB/EDWOSB certification program. Although the language of section 825 of the 2015 NDAA authorizes four different types of certification programs (by a Federal Agency, a State government, SBA, or a national certifying entity approved by SBA), SBA requests comments as to whether each of the four types should be pursued, or whether one or more of the types of certification are not feasible. SBA also requests comments on whether there should be a grace period after implementation to give firms that have self-certified the time necessary to complete the certification process. If a grace period were implemented, how long should that period be? In addition, in drafting any proposed rule to implement a WOSB/EDWOSB certification process, SBA must also consider what should happen to the current WOSB repository. As such, SBA requests comments as to whether the repository should continue to be maintained after the certification program is implemented, and if so, why and in what capacity should it be used in the future.

    SBA's regulations currently authorize WOSB and EDWOSB certifications by third party national certifying entities approved by SBA, by SBA where the firm is owned and controlled by one or more women and has been certified as a Participant in the 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program, and by states that have certified firms owned and controlled by women to be Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) for the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT's) DBE program. 13 CFR 127.300(d). SBA seeks comments on how those certification processes are working, how they can be improved, and how best to incorporate them into any new certification requirements.

    To better understand how SBA should structure the new certification processes, this ANPR seeks comments in response to the questions below, relating to each of the four certification approaches.

    Third Party Certification

    As noted above, SBA regulations currently provide for certification by third party national certifying entities that have been approved by SBA. To date, SBA has approved four third party entities to certify firms as WOSBs and EDWOSBs.

    1. How many third party certifiers would be needed to adequately serve the full community of WOSBs and EDWOSBs seeking certification?

    2. Should SBA modify its regulations to add more information about the procedures and processes used by third party certifiers to certify firms as WOSBs and EDWOSBs for SBA's WOSB program?

    3. Should SBA regulations contain information on how to become an approved third party certifier?

    4. What type of notice should be required to identify third party certifiers?

    5. Should cost to EDWOSB and WOSBs be part of the criteria that SBA considers when deciding whether to approve one or more additional third party certifiers? If so, what if any methodology should SBA utilize when considering cost?

    6. Should SBA consider the ongoing cost of recertification when evaluating third party certifiers?

    7. Should SBA determine the term period a third-party certification is valid? If so, what should be an appropriate term for certification validity?

    8. Should SBA authorize a third-party limited access to an applicant's repository file for the purpose of directly uploading approved certification documents?

    9. Should SBA change its current processes regarding denials by third party certifiers?

    10. In the future, should SBA consider allowing third party certifiers to approve mentor-protégé agreements and joint venture agreements involving EDWOSB and WOSB participants?

    Certification by States and Other Federal Agencies

    The changes to the WOSB program made by section 825 of the 2015 NDAA authorize WOSB and EDWOSB certifications by other Federal agencies and State governments. SBA's current regulations authorize SBA to recognize WOSB certifications made by states that have certified firms that are owned and controlled by women to be DBEs for the DOT's DBE program. The regulations do not, however, recognize any other State certifications and do not authorize other Federal agencies to certify WOSBs and EDWOSBs.

    1. Should the authority to certify WOSBs and EDWOSBs be extended to States generally? If the authority should be extended, how should SBA authorize individual States to participate as WOSB and EDWOSB certifying entities (i.e., what sort of approval process should be implemented to ensure that SBA's WOSB and EDWOSB requirements are properly applied)?

    2. Should SBA accept DBE certifications for women-owned firms as conclusive of WOSB ownership and control status or should SBA look further at one or more specific eligibility requirement(s)?

    3. What other State entities might have sufficient expertise to make WOSB and EDWOSB certifications?

    4. Should SBA consider other Federal agencies as entities that can certify WOSBs and EDWOSBs? If so, how should that occur? Should an agency be able to certify a WOSB or EDWOSB only for purposes of a specific WOSB or EDWOSB contract with that agency? Which office within those agencies should bear the responsibility for this certification authority?

    5. Should there be a protest mechanism that would allow an interested party to protest the WOSB or EDWOSB status of a firm certified by a State or other Federal agency to SBA?

    SBA Certification Program

    The changes to the WOSB program made by section 825 of the 2015 NDAA authorize SBA to certify firms as WOSBs and EDWOSBs. SBA currently runs two certification programs. SBA certifies firms as 8(a) BD Program Participants under the 8(a) BD Program, and SBA certifies firms as HUBZone SBCs under the HUBZone Program. 13 CFR 124.201 through 124.207, and 126.300 through 226.309; see also https://www.sba.gov/content/steps-applying-8a-program; https://www.sba.gov/content/applying-hubzone-program. SBA's regulations currently recognize certification as an 8(a) BD Program Participant as evidence of a concern's status as a WOSB and EDWOSB, where it is clear that the firm is owned and controlled by one or more women. This is because the 8(a) BD program regulations have similar ownership and control requirements as those applicable to WOSBs and EDWOSBs under the WOSB Program. In addition, the requirements governing economic disadvantage for EDWOSBs under the WOSB Program are similar to those applicable to Participants in the 8(a) BD program. The ownership and control requirements for the HUBZone Program differ from those applicable to the WOSB Program. As such, certification as a HUBZone SBC does not qualify as certification as a WOSB or EDWOSB.

    If SBA were to set up its own WOSB/EDWOSB certification program, SBA would want to ensure that it creates an efficient system that enables eligible firms to become certified in a reasonable amount of time, with a reasonable amount of effort, while also providing the necessary oversight to ensure that this Program is not used by ineligible firms. In carrying out these objectives, there are many different forms and structures that SBA could adopt. For example, SBA could adopt a framework under which only minimal documentation is collected and reviewed at the time of application (such as corporate documents and some financial records). In such a scenario, SBA could then use its authority to conduct program examinations and carry out status protests to serve an oversight role. This approach would provide for a faster application and certification process, while still maintaining oversight by providing in-depth examination and protests relating to specific contracts. On the other hand, SBA could adopt a method that includes a detailed initial review, requiring extensive document production. Such a certification process would be similar to the 8(a) BD certification program. This would be a more thorough review providing additional oversight, and would be more time-consuming for both the SBA and WOSB/EDWOSB applicants.

    1. Should SBA limit its WOSB and EDWOSB certifications only to those made through the 8(a) BD program, as is currently authorized in SBA's regulations?

    2. Should SBA's regulations be clarified to specify how a women-owned firm applying to the 8(a) BD program can simultaneously receive certification as a WOSB and EDWOSB?

    3. Recognizing that SBA has limited resources, should SBA create a new certification program specific to WOSBs and EDWOSBs? If so, how should SBA structure such a certification program so that the limited resources do not cause the time period for certification to be overly lengthy? How should SBA handle the likelihood of a large number of firms seeking certification once the certification process is operational? Should SBA consider or attempt to establish an online WOSB/EDWOSB certification program, with dynamic feedback during the certification process?

    4. What, if any, documents should SBA collect when certifying a firm as a WOSB or EDWOSB? Are the current repository document requirements unnecessary or significantly burdensome and if so, why?

    5. Should SBA and third-party certifiers utilize the same processes for certifying concerns as EDWOSBs and WOSBs?

    6. How long should the ED/WOSB certification process take? How would this compare with the current amount of time required for self-certification?

    7. Should firms that SBA finds ineligible during the application process have the right to a request for reconsideration or an appeal of that decision? If an appeal, should it be to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)? Currently, firms denied certification for the 8(a) BD program may appeal to OHA.

    8. How long should a certification be valid? Currently the System for Award Management (SAM) requires users to update and verify their information annually. Should firms certified by SBA as EDWOSBs or WOSBs be required to update their certifications manually?

    9. Should firms need to be recertified annually? If not annually, how long should WOSB or EDWOSB certification last? How should a firm be re-certified as a WOSB or EDWOSB once the time period for certification expires: should it have to re-apply anew, or should it be able to submit only those items to SBA for review that have changed since its initial certification? Should there be an online process that facilitates application or re-certification? If no changes have occurred, should the firm be able to submit an affidavit or declaration to that effect and be automatically re-certified?

    10. If a firm was previously certified by a third-party certifier, should it be able to apply to SBA for certification (or re-certification), or should it be permitted to apply only to the entity that originally certified it?

    The SBA welcomes comments on the above questions and any other certification aspect of the WOSB Program. The SBA also welcomes any available data to help substantiate recommendations made in response to the foregoing questions, or other potential policy options. SBA reminds commenters that all submissions by commenters are available to the public upon request.

    Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31806 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3772; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-21] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Butte, MT AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bert Mooney Airport, Butte, MT. After a review, the FAA found it necessary to amend the standard instrument approach procedures for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-3772; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-21, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Bert Mooney Airport, Butte, MT.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3772; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-21.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bert Mooney Airport, Butte, MT. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found modification necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. Class E surface area airspace would be increased upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Bert Mooney Airport, with a segment extending to 11.5 miles to the northwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 5.2-mile radius of Bert Mooney Airport, with a segment extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 6 miles to the southeast, 20.7 miles to the north, and 27.5 miles to the northwest of the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015 and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM MT E2 Butte, MT [Modified] Bert Mooney Airport, MT

    (Lat. 45°57′17″ N., long. 112°29′51″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of the Bert Mooney Airport, and within 4.3 miles south of and parallel to the 309° bearing of the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to the 11.5 miles northwest, thence clockwise along the 11.5-mile radius to 2.5 miles east of and parallel to the 347° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 11.5 miles north of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM MT E5 Butte, MT [Modified] Bert Mooney Airport, MT

    (Lat. 45°57′17″ N., long. 112°29′51″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 46°17′24″ N, long. 112°44′15″ W; to lat. 46°18′25″ N, long. 112°30′26″ W; to lat. 45°55′41″ N, long. 112°20′52″ W; to lat. 45°50′32″ N, long. 112°26′02″ W; to lat. 45°57′11″ N, long. 112°47′54″ W; to lat. 46°11′45″ N, long. 113°04′28″ W; thence to point of beginning; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45°35′00″ N, long. 113°05′00″ W; to lat. 46°37′00″ N, long. 113°05′00″ W; to lat. 46°37′00″ N, long. 112°26′00″ W; to lat. 46°16′00″ N, long. 112°00′00″ W; to lat. 45°35′00″ N, long. 112°00′00″ W; thence to point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 7, 2015. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31646 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4074; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-16] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Truckee, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Truckee, CA. The FAA found modification of the airspace necessary to ensure the minimum airspace necessary for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations, and to remove references to closed runways from the legal description.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-4074; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Truckee, CA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-4074/Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Truckee, CA. The FAA identified that Homewood Seaplane Base, a closed runway, was contained in the current Truckee-Tahoe airport legal description. A review of the Truckee-Tahoe airspace was completed eliminating the Homewood Seaplane Base from the legal description and removing airspace no longer required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. The Class E airspace area would be modified to within a 4.2-mile radius of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, with segments extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 19 miles north of the airport, and 16.5 miles northwest of the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth AWP CA E5 Truckee, CA [Modified] Truckee-Tahoe Airport, CA

    (Lat. 39°19′12″ N., Long. 120°08′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 15° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 19 miles north of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 328° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 16.5 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 10, 2015. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31644 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army 32 CFR Part 634 RIN 0702-AA66 Docket No. USA-2014-0005] Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to revise its regulation concerning military traffic supervision on Department of Defense installations worldwide.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by: February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by 32 CFR part 634, Docket No. USA-2014-0005 and or RIN 0702-AA66, by any of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Hargitt, (703) 424-3309.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Executive Summary I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    a. The publication of this proposed rule announces administrative revision of a current Army regulation covering motor vehicle traffic supervision. It outlines policy on vehicle registration; implements the 0.08 blood alcohol content as the standard for adverse administrative actions; permits involuntary extraction of blood under revised Military Rules of Evidence in cases where intoxicated driving is suspected; provides policy on towing, storing, and impounding vehicles; adopts the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration technical standards for breathalyzer equipment; establishes traffic points for seat belt and child restraint device violations; and requires that new safety requirements be included in the installation traffic code. It implements Department of Defense Directive 5525.04, “Enforcement of the State Traffic Laws on DoD Installations” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552504p.pdf), and Department of Defense Instruction 6055.04, “DoD Traffic Safety Program” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/605504p.pdf). It also implements portions of Department of Defense Instruction 7730.47, “Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS)” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/773047p.pdf), that apply to dispositions. This regulation was most recently published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2005 (70 FR 18969).

    b. The legal authority for this regulatory action is: 70 FR 18969, 70 FR 18982, 10 U.S.C. 2575, 18 U.S.C. 13.

    II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

    The major provisions of this regulatory action include: Driving privileges, suspensions, revocations, vehicle registration, traffic supervision and offense reporting, accident investigation and reporting, release of information, processing drunk drivers, and impounding privately owned vehicles.

    III. Cost and Benefits

    This proposed rule will not have a monetary effect upon the public. This proposed rule facilitates information sharing between authorized law enforcement agencies to enhance protection of personnel and resources critical to DoD mission assurance. Costs of law enforcement, personnel, reporting systems and records management are offset through the efficient collection of data to support traffic enforcement on military installations and enhance safety through intelligence led policing efforts. These efforts allow the efficient deployment of police and security forces proactively to deter, prevent and mitigate losses due to criminal behavior and civil violations.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Army has determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department of the Army has determined that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more.

    D. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department of the Army has determined that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not have an adverse impact on the environment.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department of the Army has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act doesn't apply. There is no additional burden for collection of information from the public or the addition of additional government forms associated with this rulemaking. Information collected to support this proposed rule is that information normally collected in the performance of law and order and traffic enforcement operations across the United States. Information collected is used to determine wants and warrants issued for criminal offenders, persons driving under suspended or revoked licenses, and traffic point assessment. Failure to provide driver's license or vehicle registration information may result in detention and fines. Procedures and business processes outlined in this proposed rule provide uniform policy concerning military traffic supervision practices to improve productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of law enforcement traffic supervision, reporting efforts including the reduction of information collection burdens on the public and the improvement of law enforcement service delivery while maintaining privacy, confidentiality and information systems protections.

    F. Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)

    The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 12630 does not apply because the proposed rule does not impair private property rights.

    G. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risk and Safety Risks)

    The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13045. This proposed rule does not apply since it does not implement or require actions impacting environmental health or safety risks to children.

    I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13132 this proposed rule does not apply because it will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.

    Thomas S. Blair, Chief, Law Enforcement Policy Branch, Office of the Provost Marshal General. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 634

    Crime, Distracted driving, Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Investigations, Law, Law enforcement, Law enforcement officers, Military law, Penalties, Personal safety and protection equipment, Text messaging, Traffic, Use of electronic devices.

    For reasons stated in the preamble the Department of the Army proposes to revise 32 CFR part 634 to read as follows:

    PART 634—MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC SUPERVISION Subpart A—Introduction Sec. 634.1 Purpose. 634.2 References. 634.3 Explanation of abbreviations and terms. 634.4 Responsibilities. 634.5 Program objectives. Subpart B—Driving Privileges 634.6 Requirements for driving privileges. 634.7 Stopping and inspecting personnel or vehicles. 634.8 Implied consent. 634.9 Suspension or revocation of driving or privately owned vehicle registration privileges. 634.10 Remedial driver training programs. 634.11 Administrative due process for suspensions and revocations. 634.12 Army administrative actions against intoxicated drivers. 634.13 Alcohol and drug abuse programs. 634.14 Restoration of driving privileges upon acquittal of intoxicated driving. 634.15 Restricted driving privileges or probation. 634.16 Reciprocal State-Military action. 634.17 Extensions of suspensions and revocations. 634.18 Reinstatement of driving privileges. Subpart C—Motor Vehicle Registration 634.19 Registration policy. 634.20 Privately owned vehicle operation requirements. 634.21 Department of Defense Form 2220. 634.22 Gold Star decals. 634.23 Termination or denial of registration. 634.24 Specified consent to impoundment. Subpart D—Traffic Supervision 634.25 Traffic planning and codes. 634.26 Installation traffic codes. 634.27 Traffic law enforcement principles. 634.28 Speed-measuring devices. 634.29 Traffic accident investigation. 634.30 Traffic accident investigation reports. 634.31 Use of traffic accident investigation report data. 634.32 Parking. 634.33 Traffic violation reports. 634.34 Training of law enforcement personnel. 634.35 Blood alcohol concentration standards. 634.36 Chemical testing policies and procedures. 634.37 Detection, apprehension, and testing of intoxicated drivers. 634.38 Voluntary breath and bodily fluid testing based on implied consent. 634.39 Involuntary extraction of bodily fluids in traffic cases. 634.40 Testing at the request of the apprehended person. 634.41 General off installation traffic activities. 634.42 Compliance with State laws. 634.43 Civil-military cooperative programs. Subpart E—Driving Records and the Traffic Point System 634.44 Driving records. 634.45 The traffic point system. 634.46 Point system application. 634.47 Point system procedures. 634.48 Disposition of driving records. Subpart F—Impounding Privately Owned Vehicles 634.49 General. 634.50 Standards for impoundment. 634.51 Towing and storage. 634.52 Procedures for impoundment. 634.53 Search incident to impoundment based on criminal activity. 634.54 Disposition of vehicles after impoundment. Subpart G—List of State Driver's License Agencies 634.55 List of State driver's license agencies. Authority:

    10 U.S.C. 30112(g); 5 U.S.C. 2951; Pub. L. 89-564; 89-670; 91-605; and 93-87.

    Subpart A—Introduction
    § 634.1 Purpose.

    (a) This subpart establishes policy, responsibilities, and procedures for motor vehicle traffic supervision on military installations in the continental United States (CONUS) and overseas areas. This includes but is not limited to the following:

    (1) Granting, suspending, or revoking the privilege to operate a privately owned vehicle (POV).

    (2) Registration of POVs.

    (3) Administration of vehicle registration and driver performance records.

    (4) Driver improvement programs.

    (5) Police traffic supervision.

    (6) Off-installation traffic activities.

    (b) Commanders in overseas areas are authorized to modify these policies and procedures in the following instances:

    (1) When dictated by host nation relationships, treaties, and agreements.

    (2) When traffic operations under military supervision necessitate measures to safeguard and protect the morale, discipline, and good order in the Services.

    § 634.2 References.

    Required and related publications along with prescribed and referenced forms are listed in Appendix A of AR 190-5.

    § 634.3 Explanation of abbreviations and terms.

    Abbreviations and special terms used in this subpart are explained in the Glossary of AR 190-5. It is available on the internet at: www.usapa.army.mil.

    § 634.4 Responsibilities.

    (a) Departmental. The Provost Marshal General, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA); Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, U.S. Navy (USN); Headquarters, Air Force Security Forces Center; Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (USMC); Staff Director, Command Security Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Chief, National Guard Bureau will—

    (1) Exercise staff supervision over programs for motor vehicle traffic supervision.

    (2) Develop standard policies and procedures that include establishing an automated records program on traffic supervision.

    (3) Maintain liaison with interested staff agencies and other military departments on traffic supervision.

    (4) Maintain liaison with departmental safety personnel on traffic safety and accident reporting systems.

    (5) Coordinate with national, regional, and state traffic officials and agencies, and actively participate in conferences and workshops sponsored by the Government or private groups at the national level.

    (6) Help organize and monitor police traffic supervision training.

    (7) Participate in the national effort to reduce intoxicated driving.

    (b) All major commanders. Major commanders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and DLA will—

    (1) Manage traffic supervision in their commands.

    (2) Cooperate with the support programs of state and regional highway traffic safety organizations.

    (3) Coordinate regional traffic supervision activities with other major military commanders in assigned geographic areas of responsibility.

    (4) Monitor agreements between installations and host state authorities for reciprocal reporting of suspension and revocation of driving privileges.

    (5) Participate in state and host nation efforts to reduce intoxicated driving.

    (6) Establish awards and recognition programs to recognize successful installation efforts to eliminate intoxicated driving. Ensure that criteria for these awards are positive in nature and include more than just apprehensions for intoxicated driving.

    (7) Modify policies and procedures when required by host nation treaties or agreements.

    (c) Major Army commanders. Major Army commanders will ensure subordinate installations implement all provisions of this part.

    (d) Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (CG, TRADOC). The CG, TRADOC will ensure that technical training for functional users is incorporated into service school instructional programs.

    (e) Installation or activity commander, Director of Military Support and State Adjutant General. The installation or activity commander (for the Navy, the term installation shall refer to either the regional commander or installation commanding officer, whoever has ownership of the traffic program) will—

    (1) Establish an effective traffic supervision program.

    (2) Cooperate with civilian police agencies and other local, state, or federal government agencies concerned with traffic supervision.

    (3) Ensure that traffic supervision is properly integrated in the overall installation traffic safety program.

    (4) Actively participate in Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAP) in neighboring communities.

    (5) Ensure that active duty Army law enforcement personnel follow the provisions of AR 190-45 in reporting all criminal violations and utilize the Army Law Enforcement Reporting and Tracking System (ALERTS) to support reporting requirements and procedures. Air Force personnel engaged in law enforcement and adjudication activities will follow the provisions of AFI 31-203 in reporting all criminal and traffic violations, and utilize the Security Forces Management Information Systems (SFMIS) to support reporting requirements and procedures.

    (6) Implement the terms of this part in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 and title 5 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 7101 through 7905.

    (7) Revoke driving privileges in accordance with this part.

    (f) Installation law enforcement officer. The installation law enforcement officer will—

    (1) Exercise overall staff responsibility for directing, regulating, and controlling traffic, and enforcing laws and regulations pertaining to traffic control.

    (2) Assist traffic engineering functions at installations by participating in traffic control studies designed to obtain information on traffic problems and usage patterns.

    (g) Safety officer. Safety officers will participate in and develop traffic accident prevention initiatives in support of the installation traffic safety program.

    (h) Facility engineer (public works officer at Navy installations). The facility engineer, engineer officer or civil engineer at Air Force installations, in close coordination with the law enforcement officer, will:

    (1) Perform that phase of engineering concerned with the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of streets, highways, and abutting lands.

    (2) Select, determine appropriate design, procure, construct, install, and maintain permanent traffic and parking control devices in coordination with the law enforcement officer and installation safety officer.

    (3) Ensure that traffic signs, signals, and pavement markings conform to the standards in the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.

    (4) Ensure that planning, design, construction, and maintenance of streets and highways conform to the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) as implemented by the Army.

    (i) Traffic engineer. The traffic engineer, in close coordination with the law enforcement officer, will:

    (1) Conduct formal traffic engineering studies.

    (2) Apply traffic engineering measures, including traffic control devices, to reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents. (If there is no installation traffic engineer, installation commanders may request these services through channels from the Commander, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, 1 Soldier Way, Scott AFB, IL 62225).

    (j) Army Alcohol and Drug Control Officer (ADCO). The ADCO will provide treatment and education services to personnel with alcohol or drug abuse problems.

    (k) Navy Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP) Directors. These directors will—

    (1) Supervise the alcohol and/or drug rehabilitation services to personnel with alcohol or drug abuse problems.

    (2) Provide remedial and/or motivational education for all persons identified as alcohol or drug abusers who are evaluated as not dependent on alcohol or drugs and who have been referred to level one rehabilitation by their commands.

    (l) Marine Corps Substance Abuse Program Officer. This officer will provide alcohol and/or drug education, treatment, and rehabilitation services to personnel with alcohol/drug abuse problems.

    (m) DLA Employee Assistance Program Officer. This officer will provide alcohol/drug counseling and referral services to identified personnel with alcohol and/or drug abuse problems in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Labor Relations Officer, Office of Human Resource, HQ DLA.

    (n) Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention Treatment (ADAPT) program. Air Force Commanders will refer personnel identified with alcohol and/or drug abuse problems to this program in accordance with established procedures.

    § 634.5 Program objectives.

    (a) The objectives of motor vehicle traffic supervision are to assure—

    (1) Safe and efficient movement of personnel and vehicles.

    (2) Reduction of traffic deaths, injuries, and property damage from traffic accidents. Most traffic accidents can be prevented. Investigation of motor vehicle accidents should examine all factors, operator status, vehicle condition, and supervisory control measures involved.

    (3) Integration of installation safety, engineering, legal, medical, and law enforcement resources into the installation traffic planning process.

    (4) Removal of intoxicated drivers from installation roadways.

    (b) [Reserved]

    Subpart B—Driving Privileges
    § 634.6 Requirements for driving privileges.

    (a) Driving a Government vehicle or POV on military installations is a privilege granted by the installation commander. Persons who accept the privilege must—

    (1) Be lawfully licensed to operate motor vehicles in appropriate classifications and not be under suspension or revocation in any state or host country.

    (2) Comply with laws and regulations governing motor vehicle operations on any U.S. military installation.

    (3) Comply with installation registration requirements in § 634.19 of this section. Vehicle registration may be required on all Army installations through use of the Vehicle Registration System (VRS). Vehicle registration is required on all Air Force and DLA installations and on National Guard installations as directed by the Chief, National Guard Bureau.

    (4) Possess, while operating a motor vehicle and produce on request by law enforcement personnel, the following:

    (i) Proof of vehicle ownership or state registration if required by the issuing state or host nation.

    (ii) A valid state, host nation, overseas command, or international driver's license and/or OF 346 (U.S. Government Motor Vehicle Operator's Identification Card), as applicable to the class vehicle to be operated, supported by a DD Form 2 (Armed Forces of the United States Geneva Convention Identification Card), U.S. Uniformed Services Identification Card, Common Access Card (CAC) or other appropriate identification for non-Department of Defense (DOD) civilians.

    (iii) A valid record of motor vehicle safety inspection, as required by the state or host nation and valid proof of insurance if required by the state or locality.

    (iv) Any regulatory permits, or other pertinent documents relative to shipping and transportation of special cargo.

    (v) When appropriate, documents that establish identification and status of cargo or occupants.

    (vi) Proof of valid insurance. Proof of insurance consists of an insurance card, or other documents issued by the insurance company, that has a policy effective date and an expiration date.

    (b) Operators of Government motor vehicles must have proof of authorization to operate the vehicle.

    § 634.7 Stopping and inspecting personnel or vehicles.

    (a) Government vehicles may be stopped by law enforcement personnel on military installations based on the installation commander's policy.

    (1) Government vehicles may be stopped on or off installations as determined by host nation agreement and command policy in overseas areas.

    (2) Stops and inspections of vehicles at installation gates or entry points and in restricted areas will be conducted according to command policy.

    (b) Stops and inspections of POVs within the military installation, other than at restricted areas or at an installation gate, are authorized only when there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, or a violation of a traffic regulation, or the installation commander's policy. Marine Corps users are guided by publication of Marine Corps order and Military Rules of Evidence 311-316 and local command regulations. DLA users are guided by DLA One Book Process Chapter, Search and Seizure.

    (c) At the time of stop, the driver and occupants may be required to display all pertinent documents, including but not limited to:

    (1) DD Form 2 (Active, Reserve, Retired, etc.)

    (2) Documents that establish the identity and status of civilians; for example, Common Access Card (CAC), DD Form 1173 (Uniformed Services Identification and Privilege Card), DA Form 1602 (Civilian Identification), AF Form 354 (Civilian Identification Card), DD Form 2 (Armed Forces of the United States Identification Card), post pass, national identity card, passport or other identification.

    (3) Proper POV registration documents.

    (4) Host nation vehicle registration documents, if applicable.

    (5) Authorization to operate a Government vehicle, if applicable.

    (6) Drivers license or OF 346 valid for the particular vehicle and area of operation.

    (7) Proof of insurance.

    § 634.8 Implied consent.

    (a) Implied consent to blood, breath, or urine tests. Persons who drive or operate motor vehicles (including cars, motorcycles, mopeds, buses, trucks, or off-road vehicles [tractors, forklifts, cranes, backhoes, bulldozers, golf carts and all terrain vehicles]) or watercraft on the installation shall be deemed to have given their consent to evidential tests for alcohol or other drug content of their blood, breath, or urine when lawfully stopped, apprehended, or cited for any offense allegedly committed while driving or in physical control of a motor vehicle or watercraft on military installations to determine the influence of intoxicants.

    (b) Implied consent to impoundment. Any person granted the privilege to operate or register a motor vehicle on a military installation shall be deemed to have given his or her consent for the removal and temporary impoundment of the POV when it is parked illegally, or for unreasonable periods, as determined by the installation commander or applicable authority, interfering with military operations, creating a safety hazard, disabled by accident, left unattended in a restricted or controlled area, or abandoned. Such persons further agree to reimburse the United States for the cost of towing and storage should their motor vehicle be removed or impounded. Existence of these conditions will be determined by the installation commander or designee.

    (c) Any person who operates, registers, or is in control of a motor vehicle on a military installation involved in a motor vehicle or criminal infraction shall be informed that notice of the violation of law or regulation will be forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of the host state and/or home of record for the individual, and to the NHTSA's National Driver Register, when applicable.

    § 634.9 Suspension or revocation of driving or privately owned vehicle registration privileges.

    The installation commander or designee may for cause, or any lawful reason, administratively suspend or revoke driving privileges on the installation. The suspension or revocation of installation driving privileges or POV registrations, for lawful reasons unrelated to traffic violations or safe vehicle operation, is not limited or restricted by this part.

    (a) Suspension. (1) Driving privileges are usually suspended when other measures fail to improve a driver's performance. Measures should include counseling, remedial driving training, and rehabilitation programs if violator is entitled to the programs. Driving privileges may also be suspended for up to six months if a driver continually violates installation parking regulations. The commander will determine standards for suspension based on frequency of parking violations and publish those standards. Aboard Navy installations, any vehicle parked in a fire lane will be towed at the owner's expense. Any vehicle parked without authorization in an area restricted due to force protection measures may subject the driver to immediate suspension by the installation commanding officer. Vehicle will be towed at the owner's and/or operator's expense.

    (2) The installation commander has discretionary power to withdraw the authorization of active duty military personnel, DOD civilian employees, and non-appropriated funds (NAF) employees, contractors and subcontractors to operate Government vehicles.

    (3) Immediate suspension of installation or overseas command POV driving privileges pending resolution of an intoxicated driving incident is authorized for active duty military personnel, family members, retired members of the military services, DOD civilian personnel, and others with installation or overseas command driving privileges, regardless of the geographic location of the intoxicated driving incident. Suspension is authorized for non-DOD affiliated civilians only with respect to incidents occurring on the installation or in areas subject to military traffic supervision. After a review of available information as specified in § 634.11, installation driving privileges will be immediately suspended pending resolution of the intoxicated driving accident in the following circumstances:

    (i) Refusal to take or complete a lawfully requested chemical test to determine contents of blood for alcohol or other drugs.

    (ii) Operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent by volume (0.08 grams per 100 milliliters) or higher or in violation of the law of the jurisdiction that is being assimilated on the military installation.

    (iii) Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.05 percent by volume but less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol by volume in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in which the vehicle is being operated if the jurisdiction imposes a suspension solely on the basis of the BAC level (as measured in grams per 100 milliliters).

    (iv) On an arrest report or other official documentation of the circumstances of an apprehension for intoxicated driving.

    (b) Revocation. (1) The revocation of installation or overseas command POV driving privileges is a severe administrative measure to be exercised for serious moving violations or when other available corrective actions fail to produce the desired driver improvement. Revocation of the driving privilege will be for a specified period, but never less than six months, applies at all military installations, and remains in effect upon reassignment.

    (2) Driving privileges are subject to revocation when an individual fails to comply with any of the conditions requisite to the granting privilege (see § 634.6). Revocation of installation driving and registration privileges is authorized for military personnel, family members, civilian employees of DOD, contractors, and other individuals with installation driving privileges. For civilian guests, revocation is authorized only with respect to incidents occurring on the installation or in the areas subject to military traffic supervision.

    (3) Driving privileges will be revoked for a mandatory period of not less than one year in the following circumstances:

    (i) The installation commander or designee has determined that the person lawfully apprehended for driving under the influence refused to submit to or complete a test to measure the alcohol content in the blood, or detect the presence of any other drug, as required by the law of the jurisdiction, or installation traffic code, or by Service directive.

    (ii) A conviction, non-judicial punishment, or a military or civilian administrative action resulting in the suspension or revocation of driver's license for intoxicated driving. Appropriate official documentation of such conviction is required as the basis for revocation.

    (4) When temporary suspensions under paragraph (a)(3) of this section are followed by revocations, the period of revocation is computed beginning from the date the original suspension was imposed, exclusive of any period during which full driving privileges may have been restored pending resolution of charges. (Example: Privileges were initially suspended on January 1, 2000 for a charge of intoxicated driving with a BAC of 0.14 percent. A hearing was held, extreme family hardship was substantiated, and privileges were restored on February 1 pending resolution of the charge. On March 1, 2000, the driver was convicted for intoxicated driving. The mandatory 1-year revocation period will consist of January 2000 plus March 2000 through January 2001, for a total of 12 months with no installation driving privileges).

    (c) Army provost marshals will use the automated VRS to develop and maintain records showing that an individual's driving privileges have been revoked.

    § 634.10 Remedial driver training programs.

    (a) Navy activities will comply with OPNAVINST 5100.12 Series, and Marine Corps activities with current edition of MCO 5100.19C for establishment of remedial training programs.

    (b) Installation commanders may establish a remedial driver-training program to instruct and educate personnel requiring additional training. Personnel may be referred to a remedial program on the basis of their individual driving history or incidents requiring additional training. The curriculum should provide instruction to improve driving performance and compliance with traffic laws.

    (c) Installation/unit commanders will direct attendance at an Army Traffic Safety Training Program remedial driving class for any person who has acquired more than five but less than twelve traffic points within a six-month period. Commanders can refer to sections below for detailed determination of points per infraction. Personnel may be referred to a remedial program on the basis of their individual driving history or incidents requiring additional training.

    (d) Installation commanders may schedule periodic courses, or if not practical, arrange for participation in courses conducted by local civil authorities.

    (e) Active Duty Soldiers and Department of the Army (DA) Civilians required to drive Government owned vehicles may attend remedial courses on the installation, or similar courses off the installation, which incur no expense to the Government. Contractor employees and family members of military personnel will attend similar remedial courses off the installation, which incur no expense to the Government.

    (f) Commanders will require individuals, inside or outside normal duty hours, to attend the courses or lose installation driving privileges.

    (g) State approved driver improvement programs may be used to fulfill the requirement where an Army standardized course is not provided.

    § 634.11 Administrative due process for suspensions and revocations.

    (a) Individual Services will promulgate separate regulations establishing administrative due process procedures for suspension or revocation of driving privileges. The procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply to actions taken by Army commanders with respect to Army military personnel and family members and to civilian personnel operating motor vehicles on Army installations. For Marine Corps users, the provisions of this section apply. For Air Force users, a preliminary suspension for intoxicated driving remains in effect until the installation commander makes a final decision. Requested hearings must take place within a reasonable period, which is determined by the installation commander.

    (b) For offenses other than intoxicated driving, suspension or revocation of the installation driving privilege will not become effective until the installation commander or designee notifies the affected person and offers that person an administrative hearing. Suspension or revocation will take place 14 calendar days after written notice is received unless the affected person makes an application for a hearing within this period. Such application will stay the pending suspension or revocation for a period of 14 calendar days.

    (1) If, due to action by the government, a hearing is not held within 14 calendar days, the suspension will not take place until such time as the person is granted a hearing and is notified of the action of the installation commander or designee. However, if the affected person requests that the hearing be continued to a date beyond the 14-day period, the suspension or revocation will become effective immediately on receipt of notice that the request for continuance has been granted, and remain in force pending a hearing at a scheduled hearing date.

    (2) If it is determined as a result of a hearing to suspend or revoke the affected person's driving privilege, the suspension or revocation will become effective when the person receives the written notification of such action. In the event that written notification cannot be verified, either through a return receipt for mail or delivery through command channels, the hearing authority will determine the effective date on a case-by-case basis.

    (3) If the revocation or suspension is imposed after such hearing, the person whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked will have the right to appeal or request reconsideration. Such requests must be forwarded through command channels to the installation commander within 14 calendar days from the date the individual is notified of the suspension or revocation resulting from the administrative hearing. The suspension or revocation will remain in effect pending a final ruling on the request. Requests for restricted privileges will be considered per § 634.15.

    (4) If driving privileges are temporarily restored (i.e. for family hardship) pending resolution of charges, the period of revocation (after final authority determination) will still total the mandatory 12 months. The final date of the revocation will be adjusted to account for the period when the violator's privileges were temporarily restored, as this period does not count towards the revocation time.

    (c) For drunk driving or driving under the influence offenses, reliable evidence readily available will be presented promptly to an individual designated by the installation commander for review and authorization for immediate suspension of installation driving privileges.

    (1) The reviewer should be any officer to include GS-11 and above, designated in writing by the installation or garrison commander whose primary duties are not in the field of law enforcement.

    (2) Reliable evidence includes witness statements, military or civilian police report of apprehension, chemical test results if completed, refusal to consent to complete chemical testing, videotapes, statements by the apprehended individual, field sobriety or preliminary breath tests results, and other pertinent evidence. Immediate suspension should not be based solely on published lists of arrested persons, statements by parties not witnessing the apprehension, or telephone conversations or other information not supported by documented and reliable evidence.

    (3) Reviews normally will be accomplished within the first normal duty day following final assembly of evidence.

    (4) Installation commanders may authorize the installation law enforcement officer to conduct reviews and authorize suspensions in cases where the designated reviewer is not reasonably available and, in the judgment of the installation law enforcement officer, such immediate action is warranted. Air Force Security Forces personnel act in an advisory capacity to installation commanders. Review by the designated officer will follow as soon as practical in such cases. When a suspension notice is based on the law enforcement officer's review, there is no requirement for confirmation notice following subsequent review by the designated officer.

    (5) For active duty military personnel, final written notice of suspension for intoxicated driving will be provided to the individual's chain of command for immediate presentation to the individual. Air Force Security Forces provide a copy of the temporary suspension to the individual at the time of the incident or may provide a copy of the final determination at the time of the incident, as pre-determined by the final action authority.

    (6) For civilian personnel, written notice of suspension for intoxicated driving will normally be provided without delay via certified mail. Air Force Security Forces personnel provide a copy of the temporary suspension to the individual at the time of the incident or may provide a copy of the final determination at the time of the incident, as pre-determined by the final action authority. If the person is employed on the installation, such notice will be forwarded through the military or civilian supervisor. When the notice of suspension is forwarded through the supervisor, the person whose privileges are suspended will be required to provide written acknowledgment of receipt of the suspension notice.

    (7) Notices of suspension for intoxicated driving will include the following:

    (i) The fact that the suspension can be made a revocation under § 634.9(b).

    (ii) The right to request, in writing, a hearing before the installation commander or designee to determine if post driving privileges will be restored pending resolution of the charge; and that such request must be made within 14 calendar days of the final notice of suspension.

    (iii) The right of military personnel to be represented by counsel at his or her own expense and to present evidence and witnesses at his or her own expense. Installation commanders will determine the availability of any local active duty representatives requested.

    (iv) The right of Department of Defense civilian employees to have a personal representative present at the administrative hearing in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

    (v) Written acknowledgment of receipt to be signed by the individual whose privileges are to be suspended or revoked.

    (8) If a hearing is requested, it must take place within 14 calendar days of receipt of the request. The suspension for intoxicated driving will remain in effect until a decision has been made by the installation commander or designee, but will not exceed 14 calendar days after the hearing while awaiting the decision. If no decision has been made by that time, full driving privileges will be restored until such time as the accused is notified of a decision to continue the suspension.

    (9) Hearing on suspension actions under § 634.9(a) for drunk or impaired driving pending resolution of charges will cover only the following pertinent issues of whether—

    (i) The law enforcement official had reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

    (ii) The person was lawfully cited or apprehended for a driving under the influence offense.

    (iii) The person was lawfully requested to submit his or her blood, breath, or urine in order to determine the content of alcohol or other drugs, and was informed of the implied consent policy (consequences of refusal to take or complete the test).

    (iv) The person refused to submit to the test for alcohol or other drug content of blood, breath, or urine; failed to complete the test; submitted to the test and the result was 0.08 or higher blood alcohol content, or between 0.05 and 0.08 in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in which the vehicle in being operated if the jurisdiction imposes a suspension solely on the basis of the BAC level; or showed results indicating the presence of other drugs for an on-post apprehension or in violation of State laws for an off-post apprehension.

    (v) The testing methods were valid and reliable and the results accurately evaluated.

    (10) For revocation actions under § 634.9(b)(3) for intoxicated driving, the revocation is mandatory on conviction or other findings that confirm the charge. (Pleas of “nolo contendere” are considered equivalent to guilty pleas).

    (i) Revocations are effective as of the date of conviction or other findings that confirm the charges. Test refusal revocations will be in addition to any other revocation incurred during a hearing. Hearing authority will determine if revocations for multiple offenses will run consecutively or concurrently taking into consideration if offenses occurred on same occasion or different times, dates. The exception is that test refusal will be one year automatic revocation in addition to any other suspension.

    (ii) The notice that revocation is automatic may be placed in the suspension letter. If it does not appear in the suspension letter, a separate letter must be sent and revocation is not effective until receipt of the written notice.

    (iii) Revocations cancel any full or restricted driving privileges that may have been restored during suspension and the resolution of the charges. Requests for restoration of full driving privileges are not authorized.

    (11) The Army Vehicle Registration System will be utilized to maintain infractions by individuals on Army installations.

    § 634.12 Army administrative actions against intoxicated drivers.

    Army commanders will take appropriate action against intoxicated drivers. These actions may include the following:

    (a) A written reprimand, administrative in nature, will be issued to active duty Soldiers in the cases described in this paragraph. Any general officer, and any officer frocked to the grade of brigadier general, may issue this reprimand. Filing of the reprimand will be in accordance with the provisions of AR 600-37.

    (1) Conviction by courts-martial or civilian court or imposition of non-judicial punishment for an offense of drunk or impaired driving either on or off the installation.

    (2) Refusal to take or failure to complete a lawfully requested test to measure alcohol or drug content of the blood, breath, or urine, either on or off the installation, when there is reasonable belief of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    (3) Driving or being in physical control of a motor vehicle or watercraft (as described above) on post when the blood alcohol content is 0.08 percent or higher, irrespective of other charges, or either on or off post when the blood alcohol content is in violation of the law of the State involved.

    (4) Driving, or being in physical control of a motor vehicle, either on or off the installation, when lawfully conducted chemical tests reflect the presence of illegal drugs.

    (b) Review by the commander of the service records of active duty soldiers apprehended for offenses described in paragraph (a) of this section to determine if the following action(s) should be taken—

    (1) Administrative reduction per AR 600-8-19; or

    (2) Bar to reenlistment per AR 601-280; or

    (3) Administrative separation per AR 635-200.

    (c) Federal civilian employees may be subject to administrative actions in accordance with 5 CFR part 752.

    § 634.13 Alcohol and drug abuse programs.

    (a) Commanders will refer military personnel suspected of drug or alcohol abuse for evaluation in the following circumstances:

    (1) Behavior indicative of alcohol or drug abuse.

    (2) Continued inability to drive a motor vehicle safely because of alcohol or drug abuse.

    (b) The commander will ensure military personnel are referred to the installation alcohol and drug abuse program or other comparable facilities when they are convicted of, or receive an official administrative action for, any offense involving driving under the influence. A first offender may be referred to treatment if evidence of substance abuse exists in addition to the offense of intoxicated driving. The provisions of this paragraph do not limit the commander's prerogatives concerning other actions that may be taken against an offender under separate Service/Agency polices (Army, see AR 600-85. Marine Corps, see MCO P1700.24B).

    (c) Active duty Army personnel apprehended for drunk driving, on or off the installation, will be referred to the local Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for evaluation within 14 calendar days to determine if the person is dependent on alcohol or other drugs which will result in enrollment in treatment in accordance with AR 600-85. A copy of all reports on military personnel and DOD civilian employees apprehended for intoxicated driving will be forwarded to the installation alcohol and drug abuse facility.

    (d) Active duty Navy personnel apprehended for drunk driving on or off the installation will be screened by the respective SARP facility within 14 calendar days to determine if the individual is dependent on alcohol or other drugs. Active duty Marines apprehended for intoxicated driving, on or off the installation, will be referred to interview by a Level II substance abuse counselor within 14 calendar days for evaluation and determination of the appropriate level of treatment required. Subsequent to this evaluation, the Marine will be assigned to the appropriate treatment programs as prescribed by MCO P1700.24B.

    (e) The Services/Agencies may develop preventive treatment and rehabilitative programs for civilian employees with alcohol-related problems.

    (f) Army supervisors of civilian employees apprehended for intoxicated driving will advise employees of ASAP services available. Civilian employees apprehended for intoxicated driving while on duty will be referred to the ASAP or comparable facility for evaluation in accordance with AR 600-85. Army commanders will ensure that sponsors encourage family members apprehended for drunk driving seek ASAP evaluation and assistance.

    (g) Navy and DLA civilian personnel charged with intoxicated driving will be referred to the Civilian Employee Assistance Program in accordance with 5 CFR part 792. Such referral does not exempt the employee from appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions under civilian personnel regulations.

    (h) Marine Corps civilian employees charged with intoxicated driving, on or off the installation, will be referred to the Employee Assistance Program as prescribed by MCO P1700.24B. Marine family members charged with intoxicated driving, on or off the installation, will be provided assistance as addressed in MCO P1700.24B. Such referral and assistance does not exempt the individual from appropriate administrative or disciplinary action under current civilian personnel regulations or State laws.

    (i) For the Army, DLA, and the Marine Corps, installation driving privileges of any person who refuses to submit to, or fails to complete, chemical testing for blood-alcohol content when apprehended for intoxicated driving, or convicted of intoxicated driving, will not be reinstated unless the person successfully completes either an alcohol education or treatment program sponsored by the installation, state, county, or municipality, or other program evaluated as acceptable by the installation commander.

    (j) Active duty Air Force personnel apprehended for drunk driving, on or off the installation, will be referred by their respective chain of command to the Air Force Substance Abuse office for evaluation in accordance with AFI 44-121/Alcohol Drug Abuse & Treatment Program, and local policies within seven days.

    (k) Local installation commanders will determine if active duty Air Force personnel involved in any alcohol incident will immediately be subjected to a urinalysis for drug content. If consent is not given for the test, a command-directed test will be administered in accordance with local policies.

    § 634.14 Restoration of driving privileges upon acquittal of intoxicated driving.

    The suspension of driving privileges for military and civilian personnel shall be restored if a final disposition indicates a finding of not guilty, charges are dismissed or reduced to an offense not amounting to intoxicated driving, or where an equivalent determination is made in a non-judicial proceeding. The following are exceptions to the rule in which suspensions will continue to be enforced.

    (a) The preliminary suspension was based on refusal to take a BAC test.

    (b) The preliminary suspension resulted from a valid BAC test, (unless disposition of the charges was based on invalidity of the BAC test). In the case of a valid BAC test, the suspension will continue, pending completion of a hearing as specified in § 634.11. In such instances, the individual will be notified in writing that the suspension will continue and of the opportunity to request a hearing within 14 calendar days.

    (1) At the hearing, the arrest report, the commander's report of official disposition, information presented by the individual, and such other information as the hearing officer may deem appropriate will be considered.

    (2) If the hearing officer determines by a preponderance of evidence that the individual was engaged in intoxicated driving, the revocation will be for 1 year from the date of the original preliminary suspension.

    (c) The person was driving or in physical control of a motor vehicle while under a preliminary suspension or revocation.

    (d) An administrative determination has been made by the state or host nation licensing authority to suspend or revoke driving privileges.

    (e) The individual has failed to complete a formally directed substance abuse or driver's training program.

    § 634.15 Restricted driving privileges or probation.

    (a) For the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and DLA, the installation commander, or his or her designee may modify a suspension or revocation of driving privileges in certain cases per paragraph (d) of this section.

    (b) Army requests for restricted driving privileges subsequent to suspension or revocation of installation driving privileges will be referred to the installation commander or designee, except for intoxicated driving cases, which must be referred to the General Court Martial Convening Authority. Withdrawal of restricted driving privileges is within the installation commander's discretion.

    (c) Probation or restricted driving privileges will not be granted to any person whose driver license or right to operate motor vehicles is under suspension or revocation by a state, Federal, or host nation licensing authority. Prior to application for probation or restricted driving privileges, a state, Federal, or host nation driver's license or right to operate motor vehicles must be reinstated. The burden of proof for reinstatement of driving privileges lies with the person applying for probation or restricted driving privileges. Revocations for test refusals shall remain.

    (d) The installation commander or designee may grant restricted driving privileges or probation on a case-by-case basis provided the person's state or host nation driver's license or right to operate motor vehicles remains valid to accommodate any of the following reasons:

    (1) Mission requirements.

    (2) Unusual personal or family hardships.

    (3) Delays exceeding 90 days, not attributed to the person concerned, in the formal disposition of an apprehension or charges that are the basis for any type of suspension or revocation.

    (4) When there is no reasonably available alternate means of transportation to officially assigned duties. In this instance, a limited exception can be granted for the sole purpose of driving directly to and from the place of duty.

    (e) The terms and limitations on a restricted driving privilege (for example, authorization to drive to and from place of employment or duty, or selected installation facilities such as hospital, commissary, and or other facilities) will be specified in writing and provided to the individual concerned. Persons found in violation of the restricted privilege are subject to revocation action as prescribed in § 634.9.

    (f) The conditions and terms of probation will be specified in writing and provided to the individual concerned. The original suspension or revocation term in its entirety may be activated to commence from the date of the violation of probation. In addition, separate action may be initiated based on the commission of any traffic, criminal, or military offense that constitutes a probation violation.

    (g) DOD employees and contractors, who can demonstrate that suspension or revocation of installation driving privileges would constructively remove them from employment, may be given a limiting suspension/revocation that restricts driving on the installation or activity (or in the overseas command) to the most direct route to and from their respective work sites (5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10)). This is not to be construed as limiting the commander from suspension or revocation of on-duty driving privileges or seizure of Optional Form (OF) 346, U.S. Government Motor Vehicle Operator's Identification Card even if this action would constructively remove a person from employment in those instances in which the person's duty requires driving from place to place on the installation.

    § 634.16 Reciprocal State-Military action.

    (a) Commanders will recognize the interests of the states in matters of POV administration and driver licensing. Statutory authority may exist within some states or host nations for reciprocal suspension and revocation of driving privileges. See subpart D of this part for additional information on exchanging and obtaining information with civilian law enforcement agencies concerning infractions by Armed Service personnel off post. Installation commanders will honor the reciprocal authority and direct the installation law enforcement officer to pursue reciprocity with state or host nation licensing authorities. Upon receipt of written or other official law enforcement communication relative to the suspension/revocation of driving privileges, the receiving installation will terminate driving privileges as if violations occurred within its own jurisdiction.

    (b) When imposing a suspension or revocation for an off-installation offense, the effective date should be the same as civil disposition, or the date that state or host-nation driving privileges are suspended or revoked. This effective date can be retroactive.

    (c) If statutory authority does not exist within the state or host nation for formal military reciprocity, the procedures below will be adopted:

    (1) Commanders will recognize official documentation of suspensions/revocations imposed by state or host nation authorities. Administrative actions (suspension/revocations, or if recognized, point assessment) for moving traffic violations off the installation should not be less than required for similar offenses on the installation. When notified by state or host nation authorities of a suspension or revocation, the person's OF 346 may also be suspended.

    (2) In CONUS locations, the host and issuing state licensing authority will be notified as soon as practical when a person's installation driving privileges are suspended or revoked for any period, and immediately for refusal to submit to a lawful BAC test. The notification will be sent to the appropriate state DMV(s) per reciprocal agreements. In the absence of electronic communication technology, the appropriate state DMV(s) will be notified by official certified mail. The notification will include the basis for the suspension/revocation and the BAC level if applicable.

    (d) In OCONUS locations, installation commanders must follow provisions of the applicable Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the law of the host nation concerning reciprocal suspension and revocation, and other international agreements. To the extent an agreement concerning reciprocity may be permitted at a particular overseas installation, the commander must have prior authorization to negotiate and conclude such an international agreement in accordance with applicable international agreements, DODD 5530.3, International Agreements, June 87, and other individual Service instructions.

    § 634.17 Extensions of suspensions and revocations.

    (a) Driving in violation of a suspension or revocation imposed under this part will result in the original period of suspension or revocation being increased by two years. In addition, administrative action may be initiated based on the commission of any traffic, criminal, or military offenses, for example, active duty military personnel driving on the installation in violation of a lawful order.

    (b) For each subsequent determination within a five-year period that revocation is authorized under § 634.9, military personnel, DOD civilians, contractors and NAF employees will be prohibited from obtaining or using an OF 346 for six months for each such incident. A determination whether DOD civilian personnel should be prohibited from obtaining or using an OF 346 will be made in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to civilian personnel. This does not preclude a commander from imposing such prohibition for a first offense, or for a longer period of time for a first or subsequent offense, or for such other reasons as may be authorized.

    (c) Commanders may extend a suspension or revocation of driving privileges on personnel until completion of an approved remedial driver training course or alcohol or drug counseling programs after proof is provided.

    (d) Commanders may extend a suspension or revocation of driving privileges on civilian personnel convicted of intoxicated driving on the installation until successful completion of a state or installation approved alcohol or drug rehabilitation program.

    (e) For Navy personnel for good cause, the appropriate authority may withdraw the restricted driving privilege and continue the suspension or revocation period (for example, driver at fault in the traffic accident, or driver cited for a moving violation).

    § 634.18 Reinstatement of driving privileges.

    Reinstatement of driving privileges shall be automatic, provided all revocations applicable have expired, proper proof of completion of remedial driving course and/or substance abuse counseling has been provided, and reinstatement requirements of individual's home state and/or state the individual may have been suspended in, have been met.

    Subpart C—Motor Vehicle Registration
    § 634.19 Registration policy.

    (a) Services may require motor vehicle registration according to guidance in this regulation and in policies of each Service and DLA. A person who lives or works on an installation or often uses the facilities may be required to register his or her vehicle. Where required, individuals who access the installation for regular activities such as use of medical facilities and regular recurring activities on the installation should register their vehicles according to a standard operating procedure established by the installation commander. The person need not own the vehicle to register it, but must have a lease agreement, power of attorney, or notarized statement from the owner of the vehicle specifying the inclusive dates for which permission to use the vehicle has been granted.

    (b) Vehicles intended for construction and material handling, or used solely off the road, are usually not registered as motor vehicles. Installation commanders may require registration of off-road vehicles and bicycles under a separate local system.

    (c) Commanders can grant limited temporary registration for up to 30 days, pending permanent registration, or in other circumstances for longer terms.

    (d) DD Form 2220 vehicle decal. The Department of Defense does not require vehicles entering Department of Defense installations to be registered via the DD Form 2220 vehicle decal; however installations may utilize DD Form 2220 for registration at the installation commander's discretion. All privately owned vehicles (POVs) must continue to be licensed, registered, inspected, and insured in accordance with state and local laws.

    (e) Rental vehicles are considered POVs for purposes of installation entry and access control. The vehicle rental contract will suffice as proper licensing, registration and insurance for installation access.

    (f) Army Installation commanders may establish local visitor identification for individuals who will be on installation for less than 30 days. The local policy will provide for use of temporary passes that establish a start and end date for which the pass is valid. Army installation commanders must refer to AR 190-13, chapter 8, for guidance concerning installation access control (Air Force, see AFI 31-113). Other Armed Services and DLA may develop and issue visitor passes locally.

    (g) The conditions in § 634.20 must be met to operate a POV on an Army and DLA Installation. Other Armed Services that do not require registration will enforce § 634.20 through traffic enforcement actions. Additionally, failure to comply with § 634.20 may result in administrative suspension or revocation of driving privileges.

    § 634.20 Privately Owned Vehicle operation requirements.

    Personnel seeking to register their POVs on military installations within the United States or its territories and in overseas areas will comply with the following requirements. (Registration in overseas commands may be modified in accordance with international agreements or military necessity.)

    (a) Possess a valid state, overseas command, host nation or international drivers license (within appropriate classification), supported by a DD Form 2-Series Identification Card, or other appropriate identification for DOD civilians, contractors and retirees.

    (b) Possess a certificate of state registration as required by the state in which the vehicle is registered.

    (c) Comply with the minimum requirements of the automobile insurance laws or regulations of the state or host nation. In overseas commands where host nation laws do not require minimum personal injury and property damage liability insurance, the major overseas commander will set reasonable liability insurance requirements for registration and/or operation of POVs within the confines of military installations and areas where the commander exercises jurisdiction. Prior to implementation, insurance requirements in host states or nations should be formally coordinated with the appropriate host agency.

    (d) Satisfactorily complete a safety and mechanical vehicle inspection by the state or jurisdiction in which the vehicle is licensed. If neither state nor local jurisdiction requires a periodic safety inspection, installation commanders may require and conduct an annual POV safety inspection; however, inspection facilities must be reasonably accessible to those requiring use. Inspections will meet minimum standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 49 CFR part 570. Lights, turn signals, brake lights, horn, wipers, and pollution control devices and standards in areas where applicable, should be included in the inspection. Vehicles modified from factory standards and determined unsafe may be denied access and registration.

    (e) Possess current proof of compliance with local vehicle emission inspection if required by the state, and maintenance requirements.

    (f) Vehicles that have been modified in an unsafe manner, as determined by an inspection that is consistent with the standards in 49 CFR part 570, will be denied registration.

    § 634.21 Department of Defense Form 2220.

    (a) Use. The DD Form 2220 may be used to identify registered POVs on Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and DLA installations or facilities. The requirement to affix the DD Form 2220 to the front windshield or bumper of registered vehicles is waived for general officers and flag officers of all Armed Services, Armed Service Secretaries, political appointees, members of Congress, and the diplomatic corps.

    (1) Each Service and DLA will procure its own forms and installation and expiration tabs. For the Army, the basic decal will be ordered through publications channels and remain on the vehicle until the registered owner disposes of the vehicle, separates from active duty or other conditions specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Air Force, DLA, and Army retirees may retain DD Form 2220. Service retirees may be required to follow the same registration procedures as active duty personnel. Upon termination of affiliation with the Service, the registered owner or authorized operator is responsible for removing the DD Form 2220 from the vehicle and surrender of the decal to the issuing office. Service installations requiring registration are responsible for the costs of procuring decals with the name of their installation and related expiration tabs.

    (2) Services and DLA, will require removal of the DD Form 2220, and installation and expiration tabs from POVs by the owner prior to departure from their current installation, retirement, or separation from military or Government affiliation, termination of ownership, registration, liability insurance, or other conditions further identified by local policy.

    (b) Specifications. (1) DD Form 2220 and installation and expiration tabs will consist of international blue borders and printing on a white background. Printer information will include the following: (i) Form title (Department of Defense Registered Vehicle).

    (ii) Alphanumeric individual form identification number.

    (iii) DOD seal.

    (2) Name of the installation will be specified on a separate tab abutting the decal. Each Service or DLA may choose optional color codes for the registrant. Army and installations having vehicle registration programs will use the following standard color scheme for the installation tab:

    (i) Blue-officers.

    (ii) Red-enlisted.

    (iii) Green DA civilian employees (including NAF employees).

    (iv) Black-contractor personnel and other civilians employed on the installation. White will be used for contract personnel on Air Force installations.

    (3) An expiration tab identifying the month and year (6-2004), the year (2000) or simply “00” will be abutted to right of the decal. For identification purposes, the date of expiration will be shown in bold block numbers on a lighter contrasting background such as traffic yellow, lime, or orange.

    (4) DD Form 2220 and any adjoining tabs will be theft resistant when applied to glass, metal, painted, or rubberized surfaces and manufactured so as to obliterate or self destruct when removal is attempted. Local policy guided by state or host nation laws will specify the exact placement of DD Form 2220.

    (5) Services may issue military and retired personnel grade insignia that will be affixed on placards, approximately five inches by eight inches in size, and placed on the driver's side dashboard. Placards should be removed from view when the vehicle is not located on a military installation.

    § 634.22 Gold Star decals.

    (a) For Army installations only, a serial-numbered Gold Star vehicle identification decal may be issued in accordance with guidance from the Army's Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. The decals may be obtained through Army installation Survivor Outreach Services and may serve as a temporary vehicle registration in accordance with DoD security standards.

    (b) Gold Star decals issued to identify Surviving Family Members of deceased Soldiers may be used to identify POVs and expedite processing for installation access.

    (c) Gold Star decals do not exempt vehicles and passengers from DOD and Army installation access screening procedures.

    (d) A physical and visual inspection of ID cards shall be conducted by security forces when required for installation access.

    § 634.23 Termination or denial of registration.

    Installation commanders or their designated representatives will terminate POV registration or deny initial registration under the following conditions (decal and tabs will be removed from the vehicle when registration is terminated):

    (a) The owner fails to comply with the registration requirements.

    (b) The owner sells or disposes of the POV, is released from active duty, separated from the Service, or terminates civilian employment with a military Service or DOD agency. Army and Air Force personnel on a permanent change of station will retain the DD Form 2220 if the vehicle is moved to their new duty station.

    (c) The owner is other than an active duty military or civilian employee and discontinues regular operations of the POV on the installation.

    (d) The owner's state, overseas command, or host nation driver's license is suspended or revoked, or the installation driving privilege is revoked. Air Force does not require removal of the DD Form 2220 when driving privileges are suspended for an individual. When vehicle registration is terminated in conjunction with the revocation of installation driving privileges, the affected person must apply to re-register the POV after the revocation expires. Registration should not be terminated if other family members having installation driving privileges require use of the vehicle.

    § 634.24 Specified consent to impoundment.

    Personnel registering POVs on DOD installations must consent to the impoundment policy. POV registration forms will contain or have appended to them a certificate with the following statement: “I am aware that (insert number and title of separate Service or DLA directive) and the installation traffic code provide for the removal and temporary impoundment of privately owned motor vehicles that are either parked illegally, or for unreasonable periods, interfering with military operations, creating a safety hazard, disabled by accident, left unattended in a restricted or control area, or abandoned. I agree to reimburse the United States for the cost of towing and storage should my motor vehicle(s), because of such circumstances, be removed and impounded.”

    Subpart D—Traffic Supervision
    § 634.25 Traffic planning and codes.

    (a) Safe and efficient movement of traffic on an installation requires traffic supervision. A traffic supervision program includes traffic circulation planning and control of motor vehicle traffic; publication and enforcement of traffic laws and regulations; and investigation of motor vehicle accidents.

    (b) Installation commanders will develop traffic circulation plans that provide for the safest and most efficient use of primary and secondary roads. Circulation planning should be a major part of all long-range master planning at installations. The traffic circulation plan is developed by the installation law enforcement officer, engineer, safety officer, and other concerned staff agencies. Highway engineering representatives from adjacent civil communities must be consulted to ensure the installation plan is compatible with the current and future circulation plan of the community. The plan should include the following:

    (1) Normal and peak load routing based on traffic control studies.

    (2) Effective control of traffic using planned direction, including measures for special events and adverse road or weather conditions.

    (3) Point control at congested locations by law enforcement personnel or designated traffic directors or wardens, including trained school-crossing guards.

    (4) Use of traffic control signs and devices.

    (5) Efficient use of available parking facilities.

    (6) Efficient use of mass transportation.

    (c) Traffic control studies will provide factual data on existing roads, traffic density and flow patterns, and points of congestion. The installation law enforcement officer and traffic engineer usually conduct coordinated traffic control studies to obtain the data. Accurate data will help determine major and minor routes, location of traffic control devices, and conditions requiring engineering or enforcement services.

    (d) The (Military) Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency (SDDCTEA) will help installation commanders solve complex highway traffic engineering problems. SDDCTEA traffic engineering services include—

    (1) Traffic studies of limited areas and situations.

    (2) Complete studies of traffic operations of entire installations. (This can include long-range planning for future development of installation roads, public highways, and related facilities.)

    (3) Assistance in complying with established traffic engineering standards.

    (e) Installation commanders should submit requests for traffic engineering services in accordance with applicable service or agency directives.

    § 634.26 Installation traffic codes.

    (a) Installation or activity commanders will establish a traffic code for operation of motor vehicles on the installation. Commanders in overseas areas will establish a traffic code, under provisions of this Part, to the extent military authority is empowered to regulate traffic on the installation under the applicable SOFA. Traffic codes will contain the rules of the road (parking violations, towing instructions, safety equipment, and other key provisions). These codes will, where possible, conform to the code of the State or host nation in which the installation is located. In addition, the development and publication of installation traffic codes will be based on the following:

    (1) State Highway Safety Program Standards (23 U.S.C. 402).

    (2) Applicable portions of the Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances.

    (b) The installation traffic code will contain policy and procedures for the towing, searching, impounding, and inventorying of POVs. These provisions should be well publicized and contain the following:

    (1) Specific violations and conditions under which the POV will be impounded and towed.

    (2) Procedures to immediately notify the vehicle owner.

    (3) Procedures for towing and storing impounded vehicles.

    (4) Actions to dispose of the vehicle after lawful impoundment.

    (5) Violators are responsible for all costs of towing, storage and impounding of vehicles for other than evidentiary reasons.

    (c) Installation traffic codes will also contain the provisions discussed as follows: (Army users see AR 385-10).

    (1) Motorcycles and mopeds. For motorcycles and other self-propelled, open, two-wheel, three-wheel, and four-wheel vehicles powered by a motorcycle-type engine, the following traffic rules apply:

    (i) Headlights will be on at all times when in operation.

    (ii) A rear view mirror will be attached to each side of the handlebars.

    (iii) Approved protective helmets (DOT compliance), eye protection, sturdy over-the-ankle footwear that affords protection for the feet and ankles, and protective clothing including long-sleeved shirt or jacket, long trousers, and full-fingered gloves or mittens made from leather or other abrasion-resistant material must be worn by operators and passengers when in operation. Motorcycle jackets and pants constructed of abrasion-resistant materials such as leather, Kevlar®, or Cordura® and containing impact-absorbing padding are strongly encouraged. Riders are encouraged to select PPE that incorporates fluorescent colors and retro-reflective material.

    (2) Restraint systems. (i) Restraint systems (seat belts) will be worn by all operators and passengers of U.S. Government vehicles on or off the installation.

    (ii) Restraint systems will be worn by all civilian personnel (including family members, guests, and visitors) driving or riding in a POV on the installation.

    (iii) Restraint systems will be worn by all military service members and Reserve Component members on active Federal service driving or riding in a POV whether on or off the installation.

    (iv) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four feet, nine inches in height must be secured in an age-appropriate child restraint.

    (v) Restraint systems are required only in vehicles manufactured after model year 1966.

    (3) Driver Distractions. Vehicle operators on a DoD installation and operators of Government owned vehicles, as well as Federal employees (including service members) operating a POV on official government business or using electronic equipment provided by the Government while driving, will not use a personal wireless communication device, including for text messaging or any other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication, unless the vehicle is safely parked or unless they are using a hands-free device. The wearing of any other portable headphones, earphones, or other listening devices (except for hands-free use of cellular phones) while operating a motor vehicle is prohibited. Use of those devices impairs driving and masks or prevents recognition of emergency signals, alarms, announcements, the approach of vehicles, and human speech. The DOD component safety guidance should note the potential for driver distractions such as eating and drinking, operating radios, CD players, global positioning equipment, and so on. Whenever possible this should only be done when the vehicle is safely parked.

    (d) Only administrative actions (reprimand, assessment of points, loss of on-post driving privileges, or other actions) will be initiated against service members for off-post violations of the installation traffic code.

    (e) In States where traffic law violations are State criminal offenses, such laws are made applicable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 13 to military installations having concurrent or exclusive Federal jurisdiction.

    (f) In those States where violations of traffic law are not considered criminal offenses and cannot be assimilated under 18 U.S.C., DODD 5525.4, enclosure 1 expressly adopts the vehicular and pedestrian traffic laws of such States and makes these laws applicable to military installations having concurrent or exclusive Federal jurisdiction. It also delegates authority to installation commanders to establish additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic rules and regulations for their installations. Persons found guilty of violating the vehicular and pedestrian traffic laws made applicable on the installation under provisions of that directive are subject to a fine as determined by the local magistrate or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both, for each violation. In those States where traffic laws cannot be assimilated, an extract copy of this paragraph (f) and a copy of the delegation memorandum in DODD 5525.4, enclosure 1, will be posted in a prominent place accessible to persons assigned, living, or working on the installation.

    (g) In those States where violations of traffic laws cannot be assimilated because the Federal Government's jurisdictional authority on the installation or parts of the installation is only proprietary, neither 18 U.S.C. 13 nor the delegation memorandum in DoDD 5525.4, enclosure 1, will permit enforcement of the State's traffic laws in Federal courts. Law enforcement authorities on those military installations must rely on either administrative sanctions related to the installation driving privilege or enforcement of traffic laws by State law enforcement authorities.

    § 634.27 Traffic law enforcement principles.

    (a) Traffic law enforcement should motivate drivers to operate vehicles safely within traffic laws and regulations and maintain an effective and efficient flow of traffic. Effective enforcement should emphasize voluntary compliance by drivers and can be achieved by the following actions:

    (1) Publishing a realistic traffic code well known by all personnel.

    (2) Adopting standard signs, markings, and signals in accordance with NHSPS and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.

    (3) Ensuring enforcement personnel establish courteous, personal contact with drivers and act promptly when driving behavior is improper or a defective vehicle is observed in operation.

    (4) Maintaining an aggressive program to detect and apprehend persons who drive while privileges are suspended or revoked.

    (5) Using sound discretion and judgment in deciding when to apprehend, issue citations, or warn the offender.

    (b) Selective enforcement will be used when practical. Selective enforcement deters traffic violations and reduces accidents by the presence or suggested presence of law enforcement personnel at places where violations, congestion, or accidents frequently occur. Selective enforcement applies proper enforcement measures to traffic congestion and focuses on selected time periods, conditions, and violations that cause accidents. Law enforcement personnel use selective enforcement because that practice is the most effective use of resources.

    (c) Enforcement activities against intoxicated driving will include—

    (1) Detecting, apprehending, and testing persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    (2) Training law enforcement personnel in special enforcement techniques.

    (3) Enforcing blood-alcohol concentration standards. (See § 634.35).

    (4) Denying installation driving privileges to persons whose use of alcohol or other drugs prevents safe operation of a motor vehicle.

    (d) Installation officials will formally evaluate traffic enforcement on a regular basis. That evaluation will examine procedures to determine if the following elements of the program are effective in reducing traffic accidents and deaths:

    (1) Selective enforcement measures;

    (2) Suspension and revocation actions; and

    (3) Chemical breath-testing programs.

    § 635.28 Speed-measuring devices.

    Speed-measuring devices will be used in traffic control studies and enforcement programs. Signs may be posted to indicate speed-measuring devices are being used.

    (a) Equipment purchases. Installations will ensure operators attend an appropriate training program for the equipment in use.

    (b) Training and certification standards. (1) The commander of each installation using traffic radar will ensure that personnel selected as operators of such devices meet training and certification requirements prescribed by the State (or SOFA) in which the installation is located. Specific information on course dates, costs, and prerequisites for attending may be obtained by contacting the State agency responsible for police traffic radar training.

    (2) Installation commanders located in States or overseas areas where no formal training program exists, or where the military personnel are unable or ineligible to participate in police traffic radar training programs, may implement their own training program or use a selected civilian institution or manufacturer's course.

    (3) The objective of the civilian or manufacturer-sponsored course is to improve the effectiveness of speed enforcement through the proper and efficient use of speed-measurement radar. On successful completion, the course graduate must be able to—

    (i) Describe the association between excessive speed and accidents, deaths, and injuries, and describe the traffic safety benefits of effective speed control.

    (ii) Describe the basic principles of radar speed measurement.

    (iii) Identify and describe the Service's policy and procedures affecting radar speed measurement and speed enforcement.

    (iv) Identify the specific radar instrument used and describe the instrument's major components and functions.

    (v) Demonstrate basic skills in checking calibration and operating the specific radar instrument(s).

    (vi) Demonstrate basic skills in preparing and presenting records and courtroom testimony relating to radar speed measurement and enforcement.

    (c) Recertification. Recertification of operators will occur every three years, or as prescribed by State law.

    § 634.29 Traffic accident investigation.

    Installation law enforcement personnel must make detailed investigations of accidents described in this section:

    (a) Accidents involving Government vehicles or Government property on the installation involving a fatality, personal injury, or estimated property damage in the amount established by separate Service/DLA policy. (Minimum damage limits are: Army, $1,000; Air Force, as specified by the installation commander; Navy and Marine Corps, $500.) The installation motor pool will provide current estimates of the cost of repairs. Investigations of off-installation accidents involving Government vehicles will be made in cooperation with the civilian law enforcement agency.

    (b) POV accidents on the installation involving a fatality, personal injury, or when a POV is inoperable as a result of an accident.

    (c) Any accident prescribed within a SOFA agreement.

    § 634.30 Traffic accident investigation reports.

    (a) Accidents requiring immediate reports. The driver or owner of any vehicle involved in an accident, as described in § 634.29, on the installation, must immediately notify the installation law enforcement office. The operator of any Government vehicle involved in a similar accident off the installation must immediately notify the local civilian law enforcement agency having jurisdiction, as well as law enforcement personnel of the nearest military installation.

    (b) Investigation records. Installation law enforcement officials will record traffic accident investigations on Service/DLA forms. Information will be released according to Service/DLA policy, the Privacy Act, and the Freedom of Information Act.

    (c) Army law enforcement officers. These officers provide the Department of the Army local Safety Office copies of traffic accident investigation reports pertaining to accidents investigated by military police that resulted in a fatality, personal injury, or estimated damage to Government vehicles or property in excess of $1,000.

    (d) POV accidents not addressed in § 634.29. Guidance for reporting these cases is provided as follows:

    (1) Drivers or owners of POVs will be required to submit a written report to the installation law enforcement office within 24 hours of an accident in the following cases, with all information listed in paragraph (d)(3) of this section:

    (i) The accident occurs on the installation.

    (ii) The accident involves no personal injury.

    (iii) The accident involves only minor damage to the POV and the vehicle can be safely and normally driven from the scene under its own power.

    (2) Information in the written report cannot be used in criminal proceedings against the person submitting it unless it was originally categorized a hit and run and the violator is the person submitting the report. Rights advisement will be given prior to any criminal traffic statements provided by violators. Within the United States, the installation law enforcement official may require such reporting on Service forms or forms of the State jurisdiction.

    (3) Reports required in paragraph (d)(1) of this section by the Army will include the following about the accident:

    (i) Location, date, and time.

    (ii) Identification of all drivers, pedestrians, and passengers involved.

    (iii) Identification of vehicles involved.

    (iv) Speed and direction of travel of each vehicle involved, including a sketch of the collision and roadway with street names and north arrow.

    (v) Property damage involved.

    (vi) Environmental conditions at the time of the incident (weather, visibility, road surface condition, and other factors).

    (vii) A narrative description of the events and circumstances concerning the accident.

    § 634.31 Use of traffic accident investigation report data.

    (a) Data derived from traffic accident investigation reports and from vehicle owner accident reports will be analyzed to determine probable causes of accidents. When frequent accidents occur at a location, the conditions at the location and the types of accidents (collision diagram) will be examined.

    (b) Law enforcement personnel and others who prepare traffic accident investigation reports will document on DA Form 3975, Military Police Report or other Service equivalent, whether or not seat restraint devices were being used at the time of the accident.

    (c) When accidents warrant, an installation commander may establish a traffic accident review board. The board will consist of law enforcement, engineer, safety, medical, and legal personnel. The board will determine principal factors leading to the accident and recommend measures to reduce the number and severity of accidents on and off the installation. (The Air Force will use Traffic Safety Coordinating Groups. The Navy will use Traffic Safety Councils per OPNAVINST 5100.12 Series).

    (d) Data will be shared with the installation legal, engineer, safety, and transportation officers. The data will be used to inform and educate drivers and to conduct traffic engineering studies.

    (e) Army traffic accident investigation reports will be provided to Army Centralized Accident Investigation of Ground Accidents (CAIG) boards on request. The CAIG boards are under the control of the Commander, U.S. Army Safety Center, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5363. These boards investigate Class A, on-duty, non-POV accidents and other selected accidents Army-wide (See AR 385-40). Local commanders provide additional board members as required to complete a timely and accurate investigation. Normally, additional board members are senior equipment operators, maintenance officers, and medical officers. However, specific qualifications of the additional board members may be dictated by the nature of the accident.

    (f) The CAIG program is not intended to interfere with, impede, or delay law enforcement agencies in the execution of regulatory responsibilities that apply to the investigation of accidents for a determination of criminal intent or criminal acts. Criminal investigations have priority.

    (g) Army law enforcement agencies will maintain close liaison and cooperation with CAIG boards. Such cooperation, particularly with respect to interviews of victims and witnesses and in collection and preservation of physical evidence, should support both the CAIG and law enforcement collateral investigations.

    § 634.32 Parking.

    (a) The most efficient use of existing on- and off-street parking space should be stressed on a non-reserved (first-come, first-served) basis.

    (b) Reserved parking facilities should be designated as parking by permit or numerically by category of eligible parkers. Designation of parking spaces by name, grade, rank, or title should be avoided.

    (c) Illegal parking contributes to congestion and slows traffic flow on an installation. Strong enforcement of parking restrictions results in better use of available parking facilities and eliminates conditions causing traffic accidents.

    (d) The “Denver boot” device is authorized for use as a technique to assist in the enforcement of parking violations where immobilization of the POV is necessary for safety. Under no circumstances should the device be used to punish or “teach a lesson” to violators. Booting should not be used if other reasonably effective but less restrictive means of enforcement (such as warnings, ticketing, reprimands, revocations, or suspensions of on-post driving privileges) are available. Procedures for booting must be developed as follows:

    (1) Local standing operating procedures (SOPs) must be developed to control the discretion of enforcers and limit booting to specific offenses. SOPs should focus on specific reasons for booting, such as immobilization of unsafe, uninspected, or unregistered vehicles or compelling the presence of repeat offenders. All parking violations must be clearly outlined in the installation traffic code.

    (2) Drivers should be placed on notice that particular violations or multiple violations may result in booting. Also, drivers must be provided with a prompt hearing and an opportunity to obtain the release of their property.

    (3) To limit liability, drivers must be warned when a boot is attached to their vehicle and instructed how to have the boot removed without damaging the vehicle.

    § 634.33 Traffic violation reports.

    (a) Most traffic violations occurring on DOD installations (within the UNITED STATES or its territories) should be referred to the proper U.S. Magistrate. (Army, see AR 190-45; DLA, see DLA One Book Process Chapter, Criminal Offenses and U.S. Federal Court Procedures; and Air Force, see AFI 51-905). However, violations are not referred when—

    (1) The operator is driving a Government vehicle at the time of the violation.

    (2) A Federal Magistrate is either not available or lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter because the violation occurred in an area where the Federal Government has only proprietary legislative jurisdiction.

    (3) Mission requirements make referral of offenders impractical.

    (4) A U.S. Magistrate is available but the accused refuses to consent to the jurisdiction of the court and the U.S. Attorney refuses to process the case before a U.S. District Court. For the Navy, DUI and driving under the influence of drugs cases will be referred to the Federal Magistrate.

    (b) Installation commanders will establish administrative procedures for processing traffic violations.

    (1) All traffic violators on military installations will be issued either a DD Form 1408 (Armed Forces Traffic Ticket) or a Central Violations Bureau (CVB) United States District Court Violation Notice (DCVN), as appropriate. Unless specified otherwise by separate Service/DLA policy, only on-duty law enforcement personnel (including game wardens) designated by the installation law enforcement officer may issue these forms. Air Force individuals certified under the Parking Traffic Warden Program may issue DD Form 1408 in areas under their control.

    (2) A copy of all reports on military personnel and DOD civilian employees apprehended for intoxicated driving will be forwarded to the installation alcohol and drug abuse facility.

    (c) Installation commanders will establish procedures used for disposing of traffic violation cases through administrative or judicial action consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Federal law.

    (d) The CVB will be used to refer violations of State traffic laws made applicable to the installation (Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13) and the delegation memorandum in DoDD 5525.4, enclosure 1, and other violations of Federal law) to the U.S. Magistrate. (Army users, see AR 190-45.)

    (1) A copy of DD Form 1805 and any traffic violation reports on military personnel and DOD civilian employees will be forwarded to the commander or supervisor of the violator. DA form 3975 may be use to forward the report.

    (2) Detailed instructions for properly completing the CVB are contained in separate Service policy directives.

    (3) The assimilation of State traffic laws as Federal offenses should be identified by a specific State code reference in the CODE SECTION block of the CVB (or in a complaint filed with the U.S. Magistrate).

    (4) The Statement of Probable Cause on the CVB will be used according to local staff judge advocate and U.S. Magistrate court policy. The Statement of Probable Cause is required by the Federal misdemeanor rules to support the issuance of a summons or arrest warrant.

    (5) For cases referred to U.S. Magistrates, normal distribution of the CVB will be as follows:

    (i) The installation law enforcement official will forward copy 1 (white) and copy 2 (yellow) to the U.S. District Court (Central Violation Bureau).

    (ii) The installation law enforcement office will file copy 3 (pink).

    (iii) Law enforcement personnel will provide copy 4 (envelope) to the violator.

    (e) When DD Form 1408 is used, one copy (including written warnings) will be forwarded through command channels to the service member's commander, to the commander of the military family member's sponsor, or to the civilian's supervisor or employer as the installation commander may establish.

    (1) Previous traffic violations committed by the offender and points assessed may be shown.

    (2) For violations that require a report of action taken, the DD Form 1408 will be returned to the office of record through the reviewing authority as the installation commander may establish.

    (3) When the report is received by the office of record, that office will enter the action on the violator's driving record.

    § 634.34 Training of law enforcement personnel.

    (a) As a minimum, installation law enforcement personnel will be trained to do the following:

    (1) Recognize signs of alcohol and other drug impairment in persons operating motor vehicles.

    (2) Prepare DD Form 1920 (Alcohol Influence Report).

    (3) Perform the three field tests of the improved sobriety testing techniques (§ 634.36[b]).

    (4) Determine when a person appears intoxicated but is actually physically or mentally ill and requires prompt medical attention.

    (5) Understand the operation of breath-testing devices.

    (b) Each installation using breath-testing devices will ensure that operators of these devices—

    (1) Are chosen for integrity, maturity, and sound judgment.

    (2) Meet certification requirements of the State where the installation is located.

    (c) Installations located in States or overseas areas having a formal breath-testing and certification program should ensure operators attend that training.

    (d) Installations located in States or overseas areas with no formal training program will train personnel at courses offered by selected civilian institutions or manufacturers of the equipment.

    (e) Operators must maintain proficiency through refresher training every 18 months or as required by the State.

    § 634.35 Blood alcohol concentration standards.

    (a) Administrative revocation of driving privileges and other enforcement measures will be applied uniformly to offenders driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When a person is tested under the implied consent provisions of § 634.8, the results of the test will be evaluated as follows:

    (1) If the percentage is 0.05 but less than 0.08, presume the person may be impaired. This standard may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of alcohol.

    (2) If the percentage is 0.08 or more, or if tests reflect the presence of illegal drugs, the person was driving while intoxicated.

    (b) Percentages in paragraph (a) of this section are percent of weight by volume of alcohol in the blood based on grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. These presumptions will be considered with other evidence in determining intoxication.

    § 634.36 Chemical testing policies and procedures.

    (a) Validity of chemical testing. Results of chemical testing are valid under this part only under the following circumstances:

    (1) Blood, urine, or other bodily substances are tested using generally accepted scientific and medical methods and standards.

    (2) Breath tests are administered by qualified personnel (§ 634.33).

    (3) An evidential breath-testing device approved by the State or host nation is used. For Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the device must also be listed on the NHTSA “Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices” (77 FR 35747, and subsequent updates that NHTSA may publish periodically in the Federal Register). The most current NHTSA list may be found by searching the Federal Register Web site (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=%22Conforming+Products+List+of+Evidential+Breath+Measurement+Devices%22).

    (4) Procedures established by the State or host nation or as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section are followed.

    (b) Breath-testing device operational procedures. If the State or host nation has not established procedures for use of breath-testing devices, the following procedures will apply:

    (1) Screening breath-testing devices will be used—

    (i) During the initial traffic stop as a field sobriety testing technique, along with other field sobriety testing techniques, to determine if further testing is needed on an evidential breath-testing device.

    (ii) According to manufacture operating instructions. (For Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the screening breath-testing device must also be listed on the NHTSA “Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices” (see paragraph (a)(3) of this section).

    (2) Evidential breath-testing devices will be used as follows:

    (i) Observe the person to be tested for at least 15 minutes before collecting the breath specimen. During this time, the person must not drink alcoholic beverages or other fluids, eat, smoke, chew tobacco/gum, or ingest any substance.

    (ii) Verify calibration and proper operation of the instrument by using a control sample immediately before the test.

    (iii) Comply with operational procedures in the manufacturer's current instruction manual.

    (iv) Perform preventive maintenance as required by the instruction manual.

    (c) Chemical tests of personnel involved in fatal accidents. (1) Installation medical authorities will immediately notify the installation law enforcement officer of—

    (i) The death of any person involved in a motor vehicle accident.

    (ii) The circumstances surrounding such an accident, based on information available at the time of admission or receipt of the body of the victim.

    (2) Medical authorities will examine the bodies of those persons killed in a motor vehicle accident to include drivers, passengers, and pedestrians subject to military jurisdiction. They will also examine the bodies of family members, who are 16 years of age or older, if the sponsors give their consent. Tests for the presence and concentration of alcohol or other drugs in the person's blood, bodily fluids, or tissues will be made as soon as possible and where practical within eight hours of death. The test results will be included in the medical reports.

    (3) As provided by law and medical conditions permitting, a blood or breath sample will be obtained from any surviving operator whose vehicle is involved in a fatal accident.

    § 634.37 Detection, apprehension, and testing of intoxicated drivers.

    (a) Law enforcement personnel usually detect drivers under the influence of alcohol or other drugs by observing unusual or abnormal driving behavior. Drivers showing such behavior will be stopped immediately. The cause of the unusual driving behavior will be determined, and proper enforcement action will be taken.

    (b) When a law enforcement officer reasonably concludes that the individual driving or in control of the vehicle is impaired, field sobriety tests should be conducted on the individual. The DD Form 1920 may be used by law enforcement agencies in examining, interpreting, and recording results of such tests. Law enforcement personnel should use the Standardized Field Sobriety Test battery as sanctioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (consisting of three tests: The horizontal gaze nystagmus test, Walk and Turn, and One-Leg Stand) and screening breath-testing devices to conduct field sobriety tests.

    § 634.38 Voluntary breath and bodily fluid testing based on implied consent.

    (a) Implied consent policy is explained in § 634.8.

    (b) Tests may be administered only if the following conditions are met:

    (1) The person was lawfully stopped while driving, operating, or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on the installation.

    (2) Reasonable suspicion exists to believe that the person was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    (3) A request was made to the person to consent to the tests combined with a warning that failure to voluntarily submit to or complete a chemical test of bodily fluids or breath will result in the revocation of driving privileges.

    (c) As stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the law enforcement official relying on implied consent will warn the person that driving privileges will be revoked if the person fails to voluntarily submit to or complete a requested chemical test. The person does not have the right to have an attorney present before stating whether he or she will submit to a test, or during the actual test. Installation commanders will prescribe the type or types of chemical tests to be used. Testing will follow policies and procedures in § 634.35. The results of chemical tests conducted under the implied consent provisions of this part may be used as evidence in courts-martial, non-judicial proceedings under Article 15 of the UCMJ, administrative actions, and civilian courts.

    (d) Special rules exist for persons who have hemophilia, other blood-clotting disorders, or any medical or surgical disorder being treated with an anticoagulant. These persons—

    (1) May refuse a blood extraction test without penalty.

    (2) Will not be administered a blood extraction test to determine alcohol or other drug concentration or presence under this part.

    (3) May be given breath or urine tests, or both.

    (e) If a person suspected of intoxicated driving refuses to submit to a chemical test, a test will not be administered except as specified in § 634.39.

    § 634.39 Involuntary extraction of bodily fluids in traffic cases.

    (a) General. The procedures outlined in this section pertain only to the investigation of individuals stopped, apprehended, or cited on a military installation for any offense related to driving a motor vehicle and for whom probable cause exists to believe that such individual is intoxicated. Extractions of body fluids in furtherance of other kinds of investigations are governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Military Rule of Evidence 315 (2002) (MRE 315), and regulatory rules concerning requesting and granting authorizations for searches.

    (1) Air Force policy on nonconsensual extraction of blood samples is addressed in AFI 44-102.

    (2) Army and Marine Corps personnel should not undertake the nonconsensual extraction of body fluids for reasons other than a valid medical purpose without first obtaining the advice and concurrence of the installation staff judge advocate or his or her designee.

    (3) DLA policy on nonconsensual taking of blood samples is contained in the DLA One Book Process Chapter, Search and Seizure.

    (b) Procedures. Involuntary bodily fluid extraction must be based on valid search and seizure authorization. An individual subject to the UCMJ who does not consent to chemical testing, as described in § 634.37, may nonetheless be subjected to an involuntary extraction of bodily fluids, including blood and urine, only in accordance with the following procedures:

    (1) An individual subject to the UCMJ who was driving a motor vehicle and suspected of being under the influence of an intoxicant may be subjected to a nonconsensual bodily fluid extraction to test for the presence of intoxicants only when there is a probable cause to believe that such an individual was driving or in control of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

    (i) A search authorization by an appropriate commander or military magistrate obtained pursuant to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Military Rule of Evidence 315 (2002) is required prior to such nonconsensual extraction.

    (ii) A search authorization is not required under such circumstances when there is a clear indication that evidence of intoxication will be found and there is reason to believe that the delay necessary to obtain a search authorization would result in the loss or destruction of the evidence sought.

    (iii) Because warrantless searches are subject to close scrutiny by the courts, obtaining an authorization is highly preferable. Warrantless searches generally should be conducted only after coordination with the servicing staff judge advocate or legal officer, and attempts to obtain authorization from an appropriate official prove unsuccessful due to the unavailability of a commander or military magistrate.

    (2) If authorization from the military magistrate or commander proves unsuccessful due to the unavailability of such officials, the commander of a medical facility is empowered by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Military Rule of Evidence 315 (2002), to authorize such extraction from an individual located in the facility at the time the authorization is sought.

    (i) Before authorizing the involuntary extraction, the commander of the medical facility should, if circumstances permit, coordinate with the servicing staff judge advocate or legal officer.

    (ii) The medical facility commander authorizing the extraction under the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Military Rule of Evidence 315 (2002) need not be on duty as the attending physician at the facility where the extraction is to be performed and the actual extraction may be accomplished by other qualified medical personnel.

    (iii) The authorizing official may consider his or her own observations of the individual in determining probable cause.

    (c) Role of medical personnel. Authorization for the nonconsensual extraction of blood samples for evidentiary purposes by qualified medical personnel is independent of, and not limited by, provisions defining medical care, such as the provision for nonconsensual medical care pursuant to AR 600-20, section IV. Extraction of blood will be accomplished by qualified medical personnel. (See the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Military Rule of Evidence 312[g] [2002]).

    (1) In performing this duty, medical personnel are expected to use only that amount of force that is reasonable and necessary to administer the extraction.

    (2) Any force necessary to overcome an individual's resistance to the extraction normally will be provided by law enforcement personnel or by personnel acting under orders from the member's unit commander.

    (3) Life endangering force will not be used in an attempt to effect nonconsensual extractions.

    (4) All law enforcement and medical personnel will keep in mind the possibility that the individual may require medical attention for possible disease or injury.

    (d) Nonconsensual extractions of blood will be done in a manner that will not interfere with or delay proper medical attention. Medical personnel will determine the priority to be given involuntary blood extractions when other medical treatment is required.

    (e) Use of Army medical treatment facilities and personnel for blood alcohol testing has no relevance to whether or not the suspect is eligible for military medical treatment. The medical effort in such instances is in support of a valid military mission (law enforcement), not related to providing medical treatment to an individual.

    § 634.40 Testing at the request of the apprehended person.

    (a) A person subject to tests under § 634.8 may request that an additional test be done privately. The person may choose a doctor, qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person to do the test. The person must pay the cost of the test. The test must be a chemical test approved by the State or host nation in an overseas command.

    (b) If the tests are requested, the apprehended person is responsible for making all arrangements.

    (c) All tests will be completed without unnecessary delay, within two hours of detention if possible.

    (d) If the suspect fails to or is unable to obtain any additional tests, the results of the tests that were done at the direction of a law enforcement official remain valid and may still be used to support actions under separate Service regulations, UCMJ, and the U.S. Magistrate Court.

    § 634.41 General off installation traffic activities.

    In areas not under military control, civil authorities enforce traffic laws. Law enforcement authorities will establish a system to exchange information with civil authorities. Army and Air Force installation law enforcement authorities will establish a system to exchange information with civil authorities to enhance the chain of command's visibility of a soldier's and airman's off post traffic violations. These agreements will provide for the assessment of traffic points based on reports from state licensing authorities involving Army military personnel. The provisions of Subpart E of this part and the VRS automated system provide for the collection of off post traffic incident reports and data. As provided in AR 190-45, civilian law enforcement agencies are considered routine users of Army law enforcement data and will be granted access to data when available from Army law enforcement systems of records. Off-installation traffic activities in overseas areas are governed by formal agreements with the host nation government. Procedures should be established to process reports received from civil authorities on serious traffic violations, accidents, and intoxicated driving incidents involving persons subject to this part. The exchange of information is limited to Army and Air Force military personnel. Provost marshals will not collect and use data concerning civilian employees, family members, and contract personnel except as allowed by state and Federal laws.

    § 634.42 Compliance with State laws.

    (a) Installation commanders will inform service members, contractors and DOD civilian employees to comply with State and local traffic laws when operating government motor vehicles.

    (b) Commanders will coordinate with the proper civil law enforcement agency before moving Government vehicles that exceed legal limits or regulations or that may subject highway users to unusual hazards. (See AR 55-162/OPNAVINST 4600.11D/AFJI 24-216/MCO 4643.5C).

    (c) Installation commanders will maintain liaison with civil enforcement agencies and encourage the following:

    (1) Release of a Government vehicle operator to military authorities unless one of the following conditions exists.

    (i) The offense warrants detention.

    (ii) The person's condition is such that further operation of a motor vehicle could result in injury to the person or others.

    (2) Prompt notice to military authorities when military personnel or drivers of Government motor vehicles have—

    (i) Committed serious violations of civil traffic laws.

    (ii) Been involved in traffic accidents.

    (3) Prompt notice of actions by a State or host nation to suspend, revoke, or restrict the State or host nation driver's license (vehicle operation privilege) of persons who—

    (i) Operate Government motor vehicles.

    (ii) Regularly operate a POV on the installation. (See also § 634.16).

    § 634.43 Civil-military cooperative programs.

    (a) State-Armed Forces Traffic Workshop Program. This program is an organized effort to coordinate military and civil traffic safety activities throughout a State or area. Installation commanders will cooperate with State and local officials in this program and provide proper support and participation.

    (b) Community-Installation Traffic Workshop Program. Installation commanders should establish a local workshop program to coordinate the installation traffic efforts with those of local communities. Sound and practical traffic planning depends on a balanced program of traffic enforcement, engineering, and education. Civilian and military legal and law enforcement officers, traffic engineers, safety officials, and public affairs officers should take part.

    Subpart E—Driving Records and the Traffic Point System
    § 634.44 Driving records.

    Army installations will use DA Form 3626 (Vehicle Registration/Driver Record) to record vehicle traffic accidents, moving violations, suspension or revocation actions, and traffic point assessments involving military and DOD civilian personnel, their family members, and other personnel operating motor vehicles on a military installation. Other Services and DLA will use their service equivalent form for this purpose. Table 1 to part 634 prescribes mandatory minimum or maximum suspension or revocation periods. Traffic points are not assessed for suspension or revocation actions.

    Table 1 to Part 634—Suspension/Revocation of Driving Privileges (See Notes 1 and 2).

    Assessment 1: Two-year revocation is mandatory on determination of facts by installation commander. (For Army, a five-year revocation is mandatory.)

    Violation: Driving while driver's license or installation driving privileges are under suspension or revocation.

    Assessment 2: One-year revocation is mandatory on determination of facts by installation commander.

    Violation: Refusal to submit to or failure to complete chemical tests (implied consent).

    Assessment 3: One-year revocation is mandatory on conviction.

    Violation:

    A. Manslaughter (or negligent homicide by vehicle) resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.

    B. Driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (0.08% or greater on DOD installations; violation of civil law off post).

    C. Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of any narcotic, or while under the influence of any other drug (including alcohol) to the degree rendered incapable of safe vehicle operation.

    D. Use of a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony. Fleeing the scene of an accident involving death or personal injury, i.e.: hit and run.

    E. Perjury or making a false statement or affidavit under oath to responsible officials relating to the ownership or operation of motor vehicles.

    F. Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle belonging to another, when the act does not amount to a felony.

    Assessment 4: Suspension for a period of six months or less or revocation for a period not to exceed one year is discretionary.

    Violation: A. Mental or physical impairment (not including alcohol or other drug use) to the degree rendered incompetent to drive.

    B. Commission of an offense in another State which, if committed on the installation, would be grounds for suspension or revocation.

    C. Permitting an unlawful or fraudulent use of an official driver's license.

    D. Conviction of fleeing, or attempting to elude, a police officer.

    E. Conviction of racing on the highway.

    Assessment 5: Loss of OF 46 for minimum of six months is discretionary.

    Violation: Receiving a second one-year suspension or revocation of driving privileges within five years.

    Notes

    1. When imposing a suspension or revocation because of an off-installation offense, the effective date should be the same as the date of civil conviction, or the date that State or host-nation driving privileges are suspended or revoked. This effective date can be retroactive.

    2. No points are assessed for revocation or suspension actions. Except for implied consent violations, revocations must be based on a conviction by a civilian court or courts-martial, non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, or a separate hearing as addressed in this part. If revocation for implied consent is combined with another revocation, such as one year for intoxicated driving, revocations may run consecutively (total of 24 months) or concurrently (total of 12 months). The installation commander's policy should be applied systematically and not on a case-by-case basis.

    § 634.45 The traffic point system.

    The traffic point system provides a uniform administrative device to impartially judge driving performance of Service and DLA personnel. This system is not a disciplinary measure or a substitute for punitive action. Further, this system is not intended to interfere in any way with the reasonable exercise of an installation commander's prerogative to issue, suspend, revoke, deny, or reinstate installation driving privileges.

    § 634.46 Point system application.

    (a) The Services and DLA are required to use the point system and procedures prescribed in this section without change.

    (b) The point system in of this part applies to all operators of U.S. Government motor vehicles, on or off Federal property. The system also applies to violators reported to installation officials in accordance with § 634.46.

    (c) Points will be assessed when the person is found to have committed a violation and the finding is by either the unit commander, civilian supervisor, a military or civilian court (including a U.S. Magistrate), or by payment of fine, forfeiture of pay or allowances, or posted bond, or collateral.

    Table 2 to Part 634—Point Assessment for Moving Traffic Violations (See Note 1).

    A. Violation: Reckless driving (willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property).

    Points assessed: 6

    B. Violation: Owner knowingly and willfully permitting a physically impaired person to operate the owner's motor vehicle.

    Points assessed: 6

    C. Violation: Fleeing the scene (hit and run)-property damage only.

    Points assessed: 6

    D. Violation: Driving vehicle while impaired (blood-alcohol content more than 0.05 percent and less than 0.08 percent).

    Points assessed: 6

    E. Violation: Speed contests.

    Points assessed: 6

    F. Violation: Speed too fast for conditions.

    Points assessed: 2

    G. Violation: Speed too slow for traffic conditions, and/or impeding the flow of traffic, causing potential safety hazard.

    Points assessed: 2

    H. Violation: Failure of operator or occupants to use available restraint system devices while moving (operator assessed points).

    Points assessed: 2

    I. Violation: Failure to properly restrain children in a child restraint system while moving (when child is 4 years of age or younger or the weight of child does not exceed 45 pounds).

    Points assessed: 2

    J. Violation: One to 10 miles per hour over posted speed limit.

    Points assessed: 3

    K. Violation: Over 10 but not more than 15 miles per hour above posted speed limit.

    Points assessed: 4

    L. Violation: Over 15 but not more than 20 miles per hour above posted speed limit.

    Points assessed: 5

    M. Violation: Over 20 miles per hour above posted speed limit.

    Points assessed: 6

    N. Violation: Following too close.

    Points assessed: 4

    O. Violation: Failure to yield right of way to emergency vehicle.

    Points assessed: 4

    P. Violation: Failure to stop for school bus or school-crossing signals.

    Points assessed: 4

    Q. Violation: Failure to obey traffic signals or traffic instructions of an enforcement officer or traffic warden; or any official regulatory traffic sign or device requiring a full stop or yield of right of way; denying entry; or requiring direction of traffic.

    Points assessed: 4

    R. Violation: Improper passing.

    Points assessed: 4

    S. Violation: Failure to yield (no official sign involved).

    Points assessed: 4

    T. Violation: Improper turning movements (no official sign involved).

    Points assessed: 3

    U. Violation: Wearing of headphones/earphones while driving motor vehicles (two or more wheels).

    Points assessed: 3

    V. Violation: Failure to wear an approved helmet and/or required protective equipment while operating or riding on a motorcycle, MOPED, or a three or four-wheel vehicle powered by a motorcycle-like engine.

    Points assessed: 3

    W. Violation: Improper overtaking.

    Points assessed: 3

    X. Violation: Other moving violations (involving driver behavior only).

    Points assessed: 3

    Y. Violation: Operating an unsafe vehicle. (See Note 2).

    Points assessed: 2

    Z. Violation: Driver involved in accident is deemed responsible (only added to points assessed for specific offenses).

    Points assessed: 1

    Notes:

    1. When two or more violations are committed on a single occasion, points may be assessed for each individual violation.

    2. This measure should be used for other than minor vehicle safety defects or when a driver or registrant fails to correct a minor defect (for example, a burned out headlight not replaced within the grace period on a warning ticket).

    § 634.47 Point system procedures.

    (a) Reports of moving traffic violations recorded on DD Form 1408 or the CVB will serve as a basis for determining point assessment. For DD Form 1408, return endorsements will be required from commanders or supervisors.

    (b) On receipt of DD Form 1408 or other military law enforcement report of a moving violation, the unit commander, designated supervisor, or person otherwise designated by the installation commander will conduct an inquiry. The commander will take or recommend proper disciplinary or administrative action. If a case involves judicial or non-judicial actions, the final report of action taken will not be forwarded until final adjudication.

    (c) On receipt of the report of action taken (including action by a U.S. Magistrate Court on the CVB), the installation law enforcement officer will assess the number of points appropriate for the offense, and record the traffic points or the suspension or revocation of driving privileges on the person's driving record. Except as specified otherwise in this part and other Service/DLA regulations, points will not be assessed or driving privileges suspended or revoked when the report of action taken indicates that neither disciplinary nor administrative action was taken.

    (d) Installation commanders may require the following driver improvement measures as appropriate:

    (1) Advisory letter through the unit commander or supervisor to any person who has acquired six traffic points within a six-month period.

    (2) Counseling or driver improvement interview, by the unit commander, of any person who has acquired more than six but less than 12 traffic points within a six-month period. This counseling or interview should produce recommendations to improve driver performance.

    (3) Referral for medical evaluation when a driver, based on reasonable belief, appears to have mental or physical limits that have had or may have an adverse affect on driving performance.

    (4) Attendance at remedial driver training to improve driving performance.

    (5) Referral to an alcohol or drug treatment or rehabilitation facility for evaluation, counseling, or treatment. This action is required for active military personnel in all cases in which alcohol or other drugs are a contributing factor to a traffic citation, incident, or accident.

    (e) An individual's driving privileges may be suspended or revoked as provided by this part regardless of whether these improvement measures are accomplished.

    (f) Persons whose driving privileges are suspended or revoked (for one violation or an accumulation of 12 traffic points within 12 consecutive months, or 18 traffic points within 24 consecutive months) will be notified in writing through official channels (§ 634.11). Except for the mandatory minimum or maximum suspension or revocation periods prescribed above, the installation commander will establish periods of suspension or revocation. Any revocation based on traffic points must be no less than six months. A longer period may be imposed on the basis of a person's overall driving record considering the frequency, flagrancy, severity of moving violations, and the response to previous driver improvement measures. In all cases, military members must successfully complete a prescribed course in remedial driver training before driving privileges are reinstated.

    (g) Points assessed against a person will remain in effect for point accumulation purposes for 24 consecutive months. The review of driver records to delete traffic points should be done routinely during records update while recording new offenses and forwarding records to new duty stations. Completion of a revocation based on points requires removal from the driver record of all points assessed before the revocation.

    (h) Removal of points does not authorize removal of driving record entries for moving violations, chargeable accidents, suspensions, or revocations. Record entries will remain posted on individual driving records for the following periods of time.

    (1) Chargeable nonfatal traffic accidents or moving violations-3 years.

    (2) Non-mandatory suspensions or revocations-5 years.

    (3) Mandatory revocations-7 years.

    § 634.48 Disposition of driving records.

    Procedures will be established to ensure prompt notice to the installation law enforcement office when a person assigned to or employed on the installation is being transferred to another installation, being released from military service, or ending employment.

    (a) If persons being transferred to a new installation have valid points or other entries on the driving records, the law enforcement offices will forward the records to the law enforcement office of the gaining installation. Gaining installation law enforcement offices must coordinate with applicable commanders and continue any existing suspension or revocation based on intoxicated driving or accumulation of traffic points. Traffic points for persons being transferred will continue to accumulate as specified in § 634.46(g).

    (b) Driving records of military personnel being discharged or released from active duty will be retained on file for two years and then destroyed. In cases of immediate reenlistment, change of officer component or military or civilian retirement when vehicle registration is continued, the record will remain active.

    (c) Driving records of civilian personnel terminating employment will be retained on file for two years and then destroyed.

    (d) Driving records of military family members containing point assessments or other entries will be forwarded to the sponsor's gaining installation in the same manner as for service members. At the new installation, records will be analyzed and made available temporarily to the sponsor's unit commander or supervisor for review.

    (e) Driving records of retirees electing to retain installation driving privileges will be retained. Points accumulated or entries on the driver record regarding suspensions, revocations, moving violations, or chargeable accidents will not be deleted from driver records except per § 634.46(g) and (h).

    (f) Army users will comply with paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section by mailing the individual's DA Form 3626 to the gaining installation Provost Marshal/Director of Emergency Services.

    Subpart F—Impounding Privately Owned Vehicles
    § 634.49 General.

    This Subpart provides the standards and procedures for law enforcement personnel when towing, inventorying, searching, impounding, and disposing of POVs. This policy is based on:

    (a) The interests of the Services and DLA in crime prevention, traffic safety, and the orderly flow of vehicle traffic movement.

    (b) The vehicle owner's constitutional rights to due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom from deprivation of private property.

    § 634.50 Standards for impoundment.

    (a) POVs should not be impounded unless the vehicles clearly interfere with ongoing operations or movement of traffic, threaten public safety or convenience, are involved in criminal activity, contain evidence of criminal activity, or are stolen or abandoned.

    (b) The impoundment of a POV would be inappropriate when reasonable alternatives to impoundment exist.

    (1) Attempts should be made to locate the owner of the POV and have the vehicle removed.

    (2) The vehicle may be moved a short distance to a legal parking area and temporarily secured until the owner is found.

    (3) Another responsible person may be allowed to drive or tow the POV with permission from the owner, operator, or person empowered to control the vehicle. In this case, the owner, operator, or person empowered to control the vehicle will be informed that law enforcement personnel are not responsible for safeguarding the POV.

    (c) Impounding of POVs is justified when any of the following conditions exist:

    (1) The POV is illegally parked—

    (i) On a street or bridge, in a tunnel, or is double parked, and interferes with the orderly flow of traffic.

    (ii) On a sidewalk, within an intersection, on a cross-walk, on a railroad track, in a fire lane, or is blocking a driveway, so that the vehicle interferes with operations or creates a safety hazard to other roadway users or the general public. An example would be a vehicle parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or blocking a properly marked driveway of a fire station or aircraft-alert crew facility.

    (iii) When blocking an emergency exit door of any public place (installation theater, club, dining hall, hospital, and other facility).

    (iv) In a “tow-away” zone that is so marked with proper signs.

    (2) The POV interferes with—

    (i) Street cleaning or snow removal operations and attempts to contact the owner have been unsuccessful.

    (ii) Emergency operations during a natural disaster or fire or must be removed from the disaster area during cleanup operations.

    (3) The POV has been used in a crime or contains evidence of criminal activity.

    (4) The owner or person in charge has been apprehended and is unable or unwilling to arrange for custody or removal.

    (5) The POV is mechanically defective and is a menace to others using the public roadways.

    (6) The POV is disabled by a traffic incident and the operator is either unavailable or physically incapable of having the vehicle towed to a place of safety for storage or safekeeping.

    (7) Law enforcement personnel reasonably believe the vehicle is abandoned.

    § 634.51 Towing and storage.

    (a) Impounded POVs may be towed and stored by either the Services and DLA or a contracted wrecker service depending on availability of towing services and the local commander's preference.

    (b) The installation commander will designate an enclosed area on the installation that can be secured by lock and key for an impound lot to be used by the military or civilian wrecker service. An approved impoundment area belonging to the contracted wrecker service may also be used provided the area assures adequate accountability and security of towed vehicles. One set of keys to the enclosed area will be maintained by the installation law enforcement officer or designated individual.

    (c) Temporary impoundment and towing of POVs for violations of the installation traffic code or involvement in criminal activities will be accomplished under the direct supervision of law enforcement personnel.

    § 634.52 Procedures for impoundment.

    (a) Unattended POVs. (1) DD Form 2504 (Abandoned Vehicle Notice) will be conspicuously placed on POVs considered unattended. This action will be documented by an entry in the installation law enforcement desk journal or blotter.

    (2) The owner will be allowed three days from the date the POV is tagged to remove the vehicle before impoundment action is initiated. If the vehicle has not been removed after three days, it will be removed by the installation towing service or the contracted wrecker service. If a contracted wrecker service is used, a DD Form 2505 (Abandoned Vehicle Removal Authorization) will be completed and issued to the contractor by the installation law enforcement office.

    (3) After the vehicle has been removed, the installation law enforcement officer or the contractor will complete DD Form 2506 (Vehicle Impoundment Report) as a record of the actions taken.

    (i) An inventory listing personal property will be done to protect the owner, law enforcement personnel, the contractor, and the commander.

    (ii) The contents of a closed container such as a suitcase inside the vehicle need not be inventoried. Such articles should be opened only if necessary to identify the owner of the vehicle or if the container might contain explosives or otherwise present a danger to the public. Merely listing the container and sealing it with security tape will suffice.

    (iii) Personal property must be placed in a secure area for safekeeping.

    (4) DD Form 2507 (Notice of Vehicle Impoundment) will be forwarded by certified mail to the address of the last known owner of the vehicle to advise the owner of the impoundment action, and request information concerning the owner's intentions pertaining to the disposition of the vehicle.

    (b) Stolen POVs or vehicles involved in criminal activity. (1) When the POV is to be held for evidentiary purposes, the vehicle should remain in the custody of the applicable Service or DLA until law enforcement purposes are served.

    (2) Recovered stolen POVs will be released to the registered owner, unless held for evidentiary purposes, or to the law enforcement agency reporting the vehicle stolen, as appropriate.

    (3) A POV held on request of other authorities will be retained in the custody of the applicable Service or DLA until the vehicle can be released to such authorities.

    § 634.53 Search incident to impoundment based on criminal activity.

    Search of a POV in conjunction with impoundment based on criminal activity will likely occur in one of the following general situations:

    (a) The owner or operator is not present. This situation could arise during traffic and crime-related impoundments and abandoned vehicle seizures. A property search related to an investigation of criminal activity should not be conducted without search authority unless the item to be seized is in plain view or is readily discernible on the outside as evidence of criminal activity. When in doubt, proper search authority should be obtained before searching.

    (b) The owner or operator is present. This situation can occur during either a traffic or criminal incident, or if the operator is apprehended for a crime or serious traffic violation and sufficient probable cause exists to seize the vehicle. This situation could also arise during cases of intoxicated driving or traffic accidents in which the operator is present but incapacitated or otherwise unable to make adequate arrangements to safeguard the vehicle. If danger exists to the police or public or if there is risk of loss or destruction of evidence, an investigative type search of the vehicle may be conducted without search authority. (Air Force, see AFP 125-2).

    § 634.54 Disposition of vehicles after impoundment.

    (a) If a POV is impounded for evidentiary purposes, the vehicle can be held for as long as the evidentiary or law enforcement purpose exists. The vehicle must then be returned to the owner without delay unless directed otherwise by competent authority.

    (b) If the vehicle is unclaimed after 120 days from the date notification was mailed to the last known owner or the owner released the vehicle by properly completing DD Form 2505, the vehicle will be disposed of by one of the following procedures:

    (1) Release to the lien holder, if known.

    (2) Processed as abandoned property in accordance with DOD 4160.21-M.

    (i) Property may not be disposed of until diligent effort has been made to find the owner; or the heirs, next of kin, or legal representative of the owner.

    (ii) The diligent effort to find one of those mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section shall begin no later than seven days after the date on which the property comes into custody or control of the law enforcement agency.

    (iii) The period for which this effort is continued may not exceed 45 days.

    (iv) If the owner or those mentioned in § 634.53 are determined, but not found, the property may not be disposed of until the expiration of 45 days after the date when notice, giving the time and place of the intended sale or other disposition, has been sent by certified or registered mail to that person at their last known address.

    (v) When diligent effort to determine those mentioned in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section is unsuccessful, the property may be disposed of without delay, except that if it has a fair market value of more than $500, the law enforcement official may not dispose of the property until 45 days after the date it is received at the storage point.

    (c) All contracts for the disposal of abandoned vehicles must comply with 10 U.S.C. 2575.

    Subpart G—List of State Driver's License Agencies
    § 634.55 List of State driver's license agencies.

    Notification of State Driver's License Agencies. The installation commander will notify the State driver's license agency of those personnel whose installation driving privileges are revoked for one year or more, following final adjudication of the intoxicated driving offense or for refusing to submit to a lawful blood-alcohol content test in accordance with § 634.8. This notification will include the basis for the suspension and the blood alcohol level. The notification will be sent to the State in which the driver's license was issued. A current listing of State driver's license agencies can be located on the worldwide web at http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Motor-Vehicles.shtml. State driver's license agencies are listed as follows:

    Alabama: Motor Vehicle Division, 2721Gunter Park Drive, Montgomery, AL36101, (205) 271-3250. Alaska: Motor Vehicle Division, P.O. Box 100960, Anchorage, AK 99510, (907) 269-5572. Arizona: Motor Vehicle Division, 1801 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 255-7295. Arkansas: Motor Vehicle Division, Joel & Ledbetter Bldg., 7th and Wolfe Streets, Little Rock, AR 72203, (501) 371-1886. California: Department of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 932340, Sacramento, CA 94232, (916) 445-0898. Colorado: Motor Vehicle Division, 140 West Sixth Avenue, Denver, CO 80204, (303) 866-3158. Connecticut: Department of Motor Vehicles, 60 State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109, (203) 566-5904. Delaware: Motor Vehicle Director, State Highway Administration Bldg., P.O. Box 698, Dover, DE 19903, (302) 736-4421. District of Columbia: Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 301 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 727-5409. Florida: Division of Motor Vehicles, Neil Kirkman Building, Tallahassee, FL 32301, (904) 488-6921. Georgia: Motor Vehicle Division, Trinity-Washington Bldg., Room 114, Atlanta, GA 30334, (404) 656-4149. Hawaii: Division of Motor Vehicle and Licensing, 1455 S. Benetania Street, Honolulu, HI 96814, (808) 943-3221. Idaho: Transportation Department, 3311 State Street, P.O. Box 34, Boise, ID 83731, (208) 334-3650. Illinois: Secretary of State, Centennial Building, Springfield, IL 62756, (217) 782-4815. Indiana: Bureau of Motor Vehicles, State Office Building, Room 901, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 232-2701. Iowa: Department of Transportation Office of Operating Authority, Lucas Office Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-5664. Kansas: Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, Interstate Registration Bureau, State Office Bldg., Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296-3681. Kentucky: Department of Transportation, New State Office Building, Frankfort, KY 40622, (502) 564-4540. Louisiana: Motor Vehicle Administrator, S. Foster Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70800, (504) 925-6304. Maine: Department of State, Motor Vehicle Division, Augusta, ME 04333, (207) 289-5440. Maryland: Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway NE., Glen Burnie, MD 21062, (301) 768-7000. Massachusetts: Registry of Motor Vehicle, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114, (617) 727-3780. Michigan: Department of State, Division of Driver Licenses and Vehicle Records, Lansing, MI 48918, (517) 322-1486. Minnesota: Department of Public Safety, 108 Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155, (612) 296-2138. Mississippi: Office of State Tax Commission, Woolfolk Building, Jackson, MS 39205, (601) 982-1248. Missouri: Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicles Bureau, Harry S. Truman Bldg., 301 W. High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65105, (314) 751-3234. Montana: Highway Commission, Box 4639, Helena, MT 59604, (406) 449-2476. Nebraska: Department of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 94789, Lincoln, NE 68509, (402) 471-3891. Nevada: Department of Motor Vehicles, Carson City, NV 89711, (702) 885-5370. New Hampshire: Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles, James H. Haynes Bldg., Concord, NH 03305, (603) 271-2764. New Jersey: Motor Vehicle Division, 25 S. Montgomery Street, Trenton, NJ 08666, (609) 292-2368. New Mexico: Motor Transportation Division, Joseph M. Montoya Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503, (505) 827-0392. New York: Division of Motor Vehicles, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12228, (518) 474-2121. North Carolina: Division of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicles Bldg., Raleigh, NC 27697, (919) 733-2403. North Dakota: Motor Vehicle Department, Capitol Grounds, Bismarck, ND 58505, (701) 224-2619. Ohio: Bureau of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 16520, Columbus, OH 43216, (614) 466-4095. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Tax Commission, Motor Vehicle Division, 2501 Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73194, (405) 521-3036 Oregon: Motor Vehicles Division, 1905 Lana Avenue NE., Salem, OR 97314, (503) 378-6903. Pennsylvania: Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Transportation and Safety Bldg., Harrisburg, PA 17122, (717) 787-3130. Rhode Island: Department of Motor Vehicles, State Office Building, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 277-6900. South Carolina: Motor Vehicle Division, P.O. Drawer 1498, Columbia, SC 29216, (803) 758-5821. South Dakota: Division of Motor Vehicles, 118 W. Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, (605) 773-3501. Tennessee: Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, 500 Deaderick Street, Nashville, TN 37242, (615) 741-1786. Texas: Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, 40th and Jackson Avenue, Austin, TX 78779, (512) 475-7686. Utah: Motor Vehicle Division State Fairgrounds, 1095 Motor Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 533-5311. Vermont: Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Montpelier, VT 05603, (802) 828-2014. Virginia: Department of Motor Vehicles, 2300 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23220, (804) 257-1855. Washington: Department of Licensing, Highways—Licenses Building, Olympia, WA 98504, (206) 753-6975. West Virginia: Department of Motor Vehicles, 1800 Washington Street, East Charleston, WV 25317, (304) 348-2719. Wisconsin: Department of Transportation Reciprocity and Permits, P.O. Box 7908, Madison, WI 53707, (608) 266-2585. Wyoming: Department of Revenue, Policy Division, 122 W. 25th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-5273. Guam: Deputy Director, Revenue and Taxation, Government of Guam, Agana, Guam 96910, (671) 635-7651 Puerto Rico: Department of Transportation and Public Works, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 41243, Minillas Station, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00940, (809) 722-2823.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31762 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1025] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; JI Mei Design Construction Co., LTD, Hudson River, Manhattan, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Hudson River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters of the Hudson River near Hells Kitchen, NY during a fireworks display, on February 6, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New York or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1025 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Daniel Vazquez, Sector New York Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4154, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port E.O. Executive order NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 7, 2015, the JI Mei Design Construction Co. notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. on February 6, 2016. The fireworks are to be launched from five barges in the Hudson River bound by a box drawn from the following points: 40°46′24.41″ N., 074°00′16.14″ W. thence to 40°46′15.64′ N., 073°59′55.74′ W. thence to 40°45′28.60″ N., 074°00′30.84″ W. thence to 40°45′37.40″ N., 074°00′51.23″ W. thence to point of origin. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with this fireworks display be a safety concern for anyone within close proximity of the barges.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters within close proximity of the fireworks barges before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. on February 6, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters in the Hudson River located approximately 375 yards west of Pier 94, Manhattan, NY and extending south to approximately 375 yards west of Pier 76, Manhattan, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Hudson River for less than 2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 2 hours that would prohibit entry within the proposed safety zone around all fireworks barges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    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.

    2. Add § 165.T01-1025 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-1025 Safety Zone; JI Mei Design Construction Co., LTD, Hudson River, Manhattan, NY.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all navigable waters of the Hudson River within a box bound by a line drawn from position 40°46′24.41″ N., 074°00′16.14″ W. thence to 40°46′15.64′ N., 073°59′55.74′ W., thence to 40°45′28.60″ N., 074°00′30.84″ W., thence to 40°45′37.40″ N., 074°00′51.23″ W., thence to point of origin.

    (b) Effective Period. This section will be enforced from 8:00 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on February 6, 2016.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    (1) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector New York, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

    (d) Regulations.

    (1) The general safety zone regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations apply.

    (2) No vessels, except for the fireworks barges and the accompanying vessels, will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the COTP.

    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 or 718-354-4353 (Sector New York Command Center) to obtain permission to do so.

    Dated: November 25, 2015. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31899 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 [NPS-CALO-19111; PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP] RIN 1024-AE24 Cape Lookout National Seashore, Off-Road Vehicle Management AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service proposes to designate routes for, and manage off-road vehicle use within Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Under the National Park Service general regulations, the operation of motor vehicles off roads is prohibited unless authorized by special regulation. The proposed rule would authorize off-road vehicle use at the Seashore through a permit system and establish operational and vehicle requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE24, by any of the following methods:

    Electronically: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Hardcopy: Mail or hand-deliver to: Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 131 Charles St., Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531.

    Instructions: All comments received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking: 1024-AE24. Comments submitted through Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov or submitted by mail must be entered or postmarked before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) February 16, 2016 Comments submitted by hand delivery must be received by the close of business hours (5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) February 16, 2016.

    If you commented on the Draft ORV Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (plan/DEIS) your comments have been considered in drafting the proposed rule. Comments should focus on this proposed rule; comments that refer back to the draft Plan/DEIS will be untimely and will not be considered.

    Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above, and bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted. Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Kenney, Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 131 Charles St., Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531; phone 252-728-2250, extension 3014.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background Description of Cape Lookout National Seashore

    Authorized by Congress in 1966 (Pub. L. 89-366), and established as a unit of the National Park System in 1976 (41 FR 39363), Cape Lookout National Seashore (Seashore) is located approximately three miles off the mainland in the central coastal area of North Carolina. Consisting of more than 29,000 acres of land and water from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet, the 56 miles of barrier islands consist mostly of wide, bare beaches with low dunes covered by scattered grasses, flat grasslands bordered by dense vegetation, maritime forests, and large expanses of salt marsh alongside the sounds. The Seashore serves as a popular recreation destination where visitors participate in a variety of recreational activities. The Seashore also contains important habitat for wildlife created by the Seashore's dynamic environmental processes. Several species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including the piping plover, seabeach amaranth, red knot, and four species of sea turtles, are found within the Seashore.

    Authority and Jurisdiction To Promulgate Regulations

    In the statute commonly known as the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101), Congress granted the National Park Service (NPS) broad authority to regulate the use of areas under its jurisdiction. The Organic Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the NPS, to “prescribe such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary or proper for the use and management of [National Park] System units.” 54 U.S.C. 100751(a). In the Seashore's enabling act, Congress directed the Secretary to administer the Seashore “for the general purposes of public outdoor recreation, including conservation of natural features contributing to public enjoyment.” 16 U.S.C. 459g-4.

    Off-Road Motor Vehicle Regulation

    Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, was issued in 1972 in response to the widespread and rapidly increasing off-road driving on public lands “often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.” Executive Order 11644 was amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, and together they are collectively referred to in this rule as “E.O.” The E.O. requires Federal agencies that allow motorized vehicle use in off-road areas to designate specific areas and routes on public lands where the use of motorized vehicles may be permitted. Specifically, section three of the E.O. requires agencies to develop and issue regulations that designate the specific areas and trails on public lands where off-road vehicle (ORV) use is permitted, and areas where ORV use is prohibited. The regulations must ensure that the designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The regulations must also require that the designation of such areas and trails shall be in accordance with the following:

    (1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands.

    (2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

    (3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

    (4) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas. Areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park System, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.

    The NPS regulation at 36 CFR 4.10(b) implements the E.O. and requires that routes and areas designated for ORV use be promulgated as special regulations and that the designation of routes and areas must comply with the E.O. It also states that ORV routes and use-areas may be designated only in national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves. The proposed rule is consistent with these authorities and with Section 8.2.3.1 (Motorized Off-road Vehicle Use) of NPS Management Policies 2006, available at: http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.html.

    ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore

    ORV use at the Seashore predates the authorization and establishment of the Seashore. Beginning in the 1930s, vehicles were transported to the islands by shallow draft ferries and were used to access fishing grounds.

    Today, ORVs provide vehicular access to the Seashore beaches for recreational purposes. ORV routes have been designated and ORV use has been managed through the Superintendent's Compendium, which currently allows for ORV use from March 16 to December 31 (with a closure of the Seashore to ORVs from January 1 through March 15). The Cape Lookout National Seashore General Management Plan (NPS 1980) identified 47 of the 56 miles of the Seashore as appropriate for controlled ORV use. The remaining nine miles on Shackleford Banks is a proposed wilderness area under the Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 88-577) and is managed to preserve its wilderness character and is closed to recreational vehicle use. Currently, of the 47 miles identified as appropriate for ORV use, 2.2 miles are closed to ORV use year-round. Additional areas may be periodically closed to ORV use for resource protection during the bird nesting and fledgling season or turtle nesting and hatching season.

    Draft ORV Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    The plan/DEIS was released for public comment on May 23, 2014, with the public comment period extended twice through September 19, 2014. This long-term ORV planning effort is based on recognition by the NPS that if allowed, ORVs must be regulated in a manner that is consistent with applicable law and in a manner that appropriately addresses resource protection, potential conflicts among the various Seashore users, and visitor safety.

    The plan/DEIS and other supporting documentation can be found online at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/calo.

    The Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would establish a special regulation pursuant to the E.O. and 36 CFR 4.10(b) that would implement portions of the preferred alternative as described in the plan/DEIS. The proposed rule would:

    • Designate ORV routes and pedestrian-only areas at the Seashore;

    • Implement a permit system for ORVs with limits on the number of permits;

    • Impose date and time restrictions on the use of ORVs to protect resources and enhance visitor experience; and

    • Set vehicle and equipment standards, phasing out sport model All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and Utility Vehicles (UTVs), and

    • Allow an additional four ramps on North Core Banks and five ramps on South Core Banks where vehicle traffic could cross between the Beach Route and the Back Route could be constructed.

    Based on review of public comments on the plan/DEIS (received through compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act), the proposed rule reflects input received during this planning effort, including the following:

    • Closure dates would be consistent to eliminate confusion;

    • Seven miles of existing pedestrian only areas would be changed from year-round to seasonal closures (Memorial Day-Labor Day);

    • Creation of a designated route for ORVs in front of the Long Point and Great Island cabin camps;

    • ORV permits would be valid for ORV use on both North and South Core Banks;

    • An annual limit on the number of ORV permits that would be issued, would be determined based on 5 years of data instead of 3 years, and data from years with significant ORV closure events in excess of 14 days (such as a hurricane) would not be used to establish a vehicle cap;

    • Night driving on beach ORV routes would not be allowed from 9:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m. from May 1 to September 14. However, driving on the back routes would be allowed from 5:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m., and at any time in the Great Island and Long Point cabin camps as defined on the map available at the office of the Superintendent and for review on the Seashore's Web site at http://www.nps.gov/calo;

    • Vehicle length restriction would be removed and replaced with a wheelbase limit not to exceed 180 inches;

    • Vehicles with a two-stroke engine would be prohibited immediately;

    • ATV trailer length limit would be removed and made consistent with vehicle trailer lengths; and

    • New prohibitions (including use of sport-model ATV/UTVs, trailers exceeding 30 feet in length and vehicles with wheel base exceeding 180 inches) would be phased in after a one year grace period.

    The NPS intends to recover the costs of administering the ORV special use permit program under 54 U.S.C. 103104. In order to obtain a special use permit required to operate a motor vehicle on designated ORV routes in the Seashore, the proposed rule would require ORV operators to pay a permit fee.

    The following explains some of the principal elements of the proposed rule in a question and answer format:

    What is an “Off-Road Vehicle” (ORV)?

    For the purposes of this regulation, an “off-road vehicle” or “ORV” means a motor vehicle used off of Seashore roads (off-road). ORVs authorized for use at the Seashore are subject to the vehicle requirements, prohibitions, and permitting requirements described in this proposed rule. However, certain ORVs would be prohibited at the Seashore by this rule; these include motorcycles, tracked vehicles, farm vehicles, vehicles with two-stroke engines, and amphibious ATVs.

    In addition, although the Seashore allows ATV and UTV use for transportation within its boundaries, the seashore has determined that the use of these vehicles for performance riding is not consistent with the Seashore's purpose or NPS Management Policies 2006 and has proposed phasing out the specific type of ATVs and UTVs that are designed and classified by manufacturers as high performance vehicles. These high performance vehicles are by design faster, noisier, and less safe than utility models. They are by design made for racing, jumping, and moving at high speeds, instead of used as a tool for access to the Seashore. The NPS will not issue ORV permits for these specific types of ATV and UTV vehicles after the expiration of the grace period.

    Do I need a permit to operate a vehicle off road?

    Yes. To obtain an ORV permit, you must complete a short educational program, acknowledge in writing that you understand and agree to abide by the rules governing ORV use at the Seashore, and pay the applicable permit fee. A permit fee schedule would be developed by the Superintendent. Implementation of the permit system would begin the first full calendar year after the final regulation becomes effective.

    Is there a limit to the number of ORV permits that will be issued?

    Yes. Initially, the maximum number of ORV permits that may be issued is 5,500. This number is based on current use levels. In order to ensure that ORV use does not exceed current levels, ORV use would be monitored for the first five years that permits are issued and thereafter capped at the five-year average use level (not to exceed 5,500). Any year in which there is a significant ORV closure (more than 14 days) will not be counted and an additional year of data would be collected and averaged to determine the cap. A permit would allow access to all routes where ORVs are permitted within the Seashore. Permits would be established on a first-come, first-served basis. An annual lottery may be established to equitably allocate permits.

    My family has several ORVs that we would like to use on Seashore beaches. Do we need to get a permit for each vehicle?

    Yes. You would need to get a permit for each vehicle you plan to use on ORV routes in the Seashore. You would also need to affix the permit to each vehicle in a manner specified by the Superintendent.

    Where and when may I operate my ORV?

    Once you obtain an ORV permit and an education certificate, you may operate your motor vehicle off road only on the routes described in the tables in the proposed rule. The Seashore would be closed to motor vehicles from December 16 through March 15 of each year. The tables in this rule also provide dates for seasonal restrictions for driving on designated routes. If deemed necessary by the Superintendent, seasonal closures for resource management could occur from March 16 through December 15. Some pedestrian only areas would be established from May 1-September 14, however some are year round. Maps of designated ORV routes will be available at the Office of the Superintendent and for review on the Seashore Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/calo.

    Does the ORV permit guarantee that all designated ORV routes will be open for me to use?

    No. In addition to the seasonal pedestrian-only restrictions from May 1-September 14, ORV routes may be subject to temporary resource and visitor safety closures. This authority would be exercised independent of the Superintendent's authority under 36 CFR 1.5 and would provide the park with greater flexibility to respond to the impacts of ORV use in designated routes and areas to prevent `unacceptable impacts'. Public notice of any action taken under this authority would be given pursuant to one or more of the methods set forth in 36 CFR 1.7.

    Are there any requirements for my ORV?

    Yes. To receive a permit to operate a vehicle on designated ORV routes (except for ATVs and UTVs), your vehicle must be registered, licensed, and insured for highway use and comply with inspection regulations within the state, province or country, where the vehicle is registered. ORV operators (except for ATVs and UTVs) would be required to carry a low-pressure tire gauge, shovel, jack, and jack stand/board in the vehicle.

    Can I drive my two-wheel-drive vehicle on designated ORV routes?

    Yes. Four-wheel drive vehicles are recommended, but two-wheel drive vehicles would be allowed if, in the judgment of the vehicle operator, the vehicle is capable of over-sand travel.

    Can I tow a trailer with my vehicle on designated ORV routes?

    Yes. Trailers with one or two axles would be allowed. Trailers with more than two axles would be prohibited. Trailers cannot exceed 30 feet in length including all attachments. Restrictions on trailers would be implemented after a one-year grace period. Transporting passengers in a trailer would be prohibited.

    Is there a vehicle length restriction?

    No. The proposed rule would not institute a vehicle length restriction, but the NPS wants to ensure that all vehicles on the Seashore can safely navigate the back routes and properly stay in the track on designated routes. Therefore, the NPS would not issue ORV permits for vehicles with a wheelbase measurement that exceeds 180 inches. There would be a one year grace period before the wheelbase restriction is implemented.

    May I ride my all-terrain vehicle (ATV) or utility vehicle (UTV) at the Seashore?

    After a one year grace period, only non-sport model ATVs and UTVs would be allowed from March 16 through December 15 on designated routes within the Seashore provided the non-sport ATVs and UTVs have not been modified and still meet the manufacturer's original specifications for a non-sport or utility model. ATV/UTVs would be allowed a maximum of 3 axles, and would not need to be registered, licensed, insured for highway use, or comply with inspection regulations. ATV/UTV operators would not be required to carry in or on the vehicle a low-pressure tire gauge, shovel, jack, or jack stand/board. ATV operators must wear a U.S. Department of Transportation approved helmet and eye protection. All high-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs would be prohibited after a one year grace period and can no longer receive the required ORV permit to ride at the seashore. While these high-performance sports model are generally identified by the manufactures, any questions concerning the models subject to this prohibition will be resolved by the Superintendent.

    What is the speed limit on designated ORV routes?

    The speed limit would be 25 miles per hour (unless otherwise designated). The speed limit would be reduced to 15 miles per hour when operating a vehicle within 100 feet of any person, another vehicle, a campsite, any structure or while towing a trailer.

    May I drive on designated ORV routes at night?

    Yes, but not at all times on all routes. Night driving on beach ORV routes would not be allowed from 9:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. from May 1 to September 14 to reduce impacts on wildlife. In addition, driving on the back routes would be allowed from 5:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m., and at any time in the Great Island and Long Point cabin camps (as defined by the map available at the office of the Superintendent and for review on the Seashore's Web site at http://www.nps.gov/calo.

    May my ORV be parked on the beach if I don't drive it between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the dates night driving restrictions are in effect?

    Yes, if the ORV is attended and not driven on the beach during that time.

    I have a family member who is disabled or mobility-impaired. Can I use my ORV to drive that family member to the beach where we are gathering, even if it is not designated as an ORV route?

    Yes, such use could be accommodated on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to the conditions of a special use permit issued by the Superintendent.

    Do concessionaires and commercial use authorization holders need a separate ORV permit?

    No. Use of ORVs associated with businesses would be controlled through an NPS concession contract or commercial use authorization.

    What is the relationship of NC Motor Vehicle Law to these Regulations?

    NPS specifically adopts state motor vehicle laws at 36 CFR 4.2(a), and can deviate from these state laws by special regulation. Under N.C. General Statute 20-4.01(32)(b), beach areas are considered public vehicular areas, and are not necessarily subject to the broader set of registration and operation laws for state roads. This rule would specify that notwithstanding the definition of public vehicular area in North Carolina State law, the operator of any motor vehicle at the Seashore, whether the ORV is moving or parked, must at all times comply with North Carolina traffic laws that would apply as if operating on a North Carolina highway. This requirement would apply to ATVs/UTVs even though they are, for example, not required to be registered, inspected or display a license plate, nor allowed on highways under North Carolina law. However, this special regulation would allow ATV/UTV use as ORVs the same as other vehicles within the Seashore; the operation of all these vehicles must be in compliance with this and other applicable regulations such as operation and safety requirements, and non-conflicting North Carolina law.

    Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands (Executive Order 11644)

    Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989, was adopted to address impacts on public lands from ORV use. The Executive Order applies to ORV use on federal public lands that is not authorized under a valid lease, permit, contract, or license. Section 3(4) of E.O. 11644 provides that ORV “areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.” Since the E.O. clearly was not intended to prohibit all ORV use everywhere in these units, the term “adversely affect” does not have the same meaning as the somewhat similar terms “adverse impact” or “adverse effect” commonly used in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, a procedural statute that provides for the study of environmental impacts, the term “adverse effect” refers to any effect, no matter how minor or negligible.

    Section 3(4) of the E.O., by contrast, does not prescribe procedures or any particular means of analysis. It concerns substantive management decisions, and must instead be read in the context of the authorities applicable to such decisions. The Seashore is an area of the National Park System. Therefore, the NPS interprets the E.O. term “adversely affect” consistent with its NPS Management Policies 2006. Those policies require that NPS only allows “appropriate use” of parks, and avoids “unacceptable impacts.”

    Specifically, this rule would not impede the attainment of the Seashore's desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified in the plan/DEIS. The NPS has determined this rule would not unreasonably interfere with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape maintained in natural locations within the Seashore. Therefore, within the context of the E.O., ORV use on the ORV routes designated by this rule (which are also subject to safety and resource closures and other species management measures that would be implemented under the proposed rule) would not adversely affect the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of the Seashore.

    Section 8(a) of the E.O. requires the respective agency head to monitor the effects of the use of off-road vehicles on lands under their jurisdictions. On the basis of the information gathered, such agency head shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to the E.O. as necessary to further the policy of the E.O. The plan/DEIS identifies monitoring and resource protection procedures, and desired future conditions to provide for the ongoing and future evaluation of impacts of ORV use on protected resources. The Park Superintendent would have authority under both this rule and under 36 CFR 1.5 to close portions of the Seashore as needed to protect park resources and values, and public health and safety.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on information contained in a report entitled, “Benefit Cost Analysis of Proposed ORV Use Regulation at Cape Lookout National Seashore, available for public review at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=15978.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the SBREFA. This rule:

    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The designated ORV routes are located entirely within the Seashore, and will not result in direct expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments. This rule addresses public use of NPS lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. Access to private property located within or adjacent to the Seashore will not be affected, and this rule does not regulate uses of private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of NPS-administered lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by OMB under the PRA of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS special use permits and has assigned OMB control number 1024-0026 (expires 08/31/2016). 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 OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    This rule constitutes a major federal action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In accordance with NEPA, the NPS prepared the plan/DEIS, which was released for public comment on May 23, 2014, with the public comment period extended to September 4, 2014, then again to September 19, 2014. A full description of the alternatives that were considered, the environmental impacts associated with the project, and public involvement, and other supporting documentation, can be found online at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/calo. The NPS considered public comments made on the plan/DEIS in drafting this proposed rule. The NPS will evaluate substantive comments received on the proposed rule in developing the Final ORV Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, and Final Rule.

    Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    Clarity of This Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    Public Participation

    All submissions received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking: 1024-AE24. All comments received through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov will be available without change. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To view comments received through the Federal eRulemaking portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter 1024- AE24 in the search box.

    Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation are: Russel J. Wilson, Chief, Regulations, Jurisdiction, and Special Park Uses, and A.J. North, Regulations Coordinator, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

    List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

    District of Columbia, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

    PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 10-137 and DC Code 50-2201.07.

    2. In § 7.49, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 7.49 Cape Lookout National Seashore.

    (c) Off-road motor vehicle use. (1) Definitions. In addition to the definitions found in § 1.4 of this chapter, the following terms apply in this paragraph (c):

    All-terrain vehicle (ATV)—A motorized off-highway vehicle designed to travel on four low-pressure tires, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering control.

    Back Route—A marked and maintained ORV corridor located behind the dunes running parallel to the beach, known locally as the back road.

    ORV means a motor vehicle used off of Seashore roads (off-road).

    Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV)—A motorized off-highway vehicle designed to travel on four low-pressure tires. Differs from ATVs in that UTVs typically have a side-by-side seating arrangement, many have seat belts and roll-over protection, and most have a cargo box at the rear of the vehicle. UTVs generally have a higher payload capability and are longer and wider than ATVs.

    (2) ORV permits. The Superintendent administers the NPS special park use permit system at the Seashore, including permits for ORV use, and charges fees to recover ORV program administration costs.

    (i) A permit issued by the Superintendent is required to operate a vehicle on designated ORV routes at the Seashore. The Superintendent is responsible for determining or resolving the eligibility of a vehicle for an ORV permit. The cost of the permits will be set by the Superintendent.

    (ii) Operation of a motor vehicle authorized under an ORV permit is limited to those routes designated in the table in paragraph (c)(7) of this section.

    (iii) The Superintendent will establish an annual limit on the number of ORV permits that may be issued, not to exceed 5,500, and will notify the public under § 1.7 of this chapter.

    (iv) In order to obtain a permit, an applicant must comply with vehicle and equipment requirements, obtain an education certificate, acknowledge in writing an understanding of the rules governing ORV use at the Seashore, and pay the permit fee.

    (v) Each permit holder must affix the permit in a manner and location specified by the Superintendent to the vehicle authorized for off-road use.

    (3) Vehicle, operator and equipment requirements. The following requirements apply for driving a motor vehicle off-road:

    (i) The ORV (except ATVs and UTVs) must be registered, licensed, and insured for highway use and must comply with inspection regulations within the state, province, or country where the vehicle is registered.

    (ii) The ORV (except ATVs and UTVs) must have no more than two axles, no more than six wheels and no less than four wheels. ATVs and UTVs may have no more than three axles, no more than six wheels and no less than four wheels. An ORV's wheelbase must not exceed 180 inches; this requirement will take effect one year after the effective date of the final rule.

    (iii) A towed trailer must have no more than two axles and must not exceed 30 feet in length. This paragraph will take effect one year after the effective date of the Final Rule.

    (iv) The ORV (except ATVs and UTVs) must carry a low-pressure tire gauge, shovel, jack, and jack stand or support board.

    (v) ORV operators must possess a valid driver's license and an education certificate in addition to the vehicle being permitted.

    (vi) ATV operators must wear a U.S. Department of Transportation approved helmet and eye protection.

    (vii) Riding on the tailgate or roof or hanging outside of moving ORVs is prohibited.

    (viii) While riding in a truck bed a person must be seated on the floor. Children under 16 years of age riding in truck beds must also be accompanied by an adult riding in the bed.

    (ix) Passengers are prohibited from riding in or on a trailer, unless specifically authorized by the NPS in a permit, commercial use authorization or concession contract.

    (4) Vehicle inspection. An authorized person may inspect the vehicle to determine compliance with the requirements of this regulation.

    (5) Prohibited vehicles. Use of a motorcycle, tracked vehicle, farm vehicle, a vehicle with a two-stroke engine, and combination vehicles (i.e. amphibious ATVs) are prohibited in the Seashore. The use of high performance/sport model ATVs and UTVs will be prohibited one year after the effective date of the final rule.

    (6) Special use permits for off-road driving, temporary use. The Superintendent may issue a special use permit for temporary off-road vehicle use to allow vehicular transport of mobility impaired individuals, subject to the conditions of the permit.

    (7) ORV routes. (i) The Seashore is closed to ORV use from December 16 through March 15.

    (ii) The Seashore is open to ORV use from March 16 through December 15, with seasonal closures for species management from March 16 through December15 and pedestrian-only areas from May 1-September 14.

    (iii) The following tables designate ORV routes, ORV ramps, areas closed to ORVs, and pedestrian only areas. Maps depicting the designated routes and ramps, areas closed and pedestrian only areas are available in the Office of the Superintendent and for review on the Seashore Web site.

    Designated ORV Beach Route The oceanside beach of North and South Core Banks from the toe of the primary dune line or vegetation line to the water line on the seaward side, that is accessible and otherwise open (not closed due to pedestrian, safety or species resource protection closures). The ORV corridor would be marked on the landward side. Designated ORV Back Route and Ramps The back route is a marked route parallel to the ocean beach behind the primary dune on North Core and South Core Banks. Marked crossover routes or “ramps” between the ocean beach and back route are further described below. North Core Banks Route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line from approximately 0.5 miles south of Portsmouth Flats at mile marker 4 to 0.5 mile north of Old Drum Inlet at mile marker 18 with the exception there is no back route at Kathryn-Jane Flats from mile 6 to mile 7. South of Old Drum Inlet the back route would continue from approximately mile maker 19.5 to mile marker 21 immediately north of the Ophelia Inlet. Ramps: 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9, 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 12, 13a, 13b, 14, 15a, 15b, 16, 17a, 17b, 18a, 18b, 19, 20, 21. South Core Banks Route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line approximately 1 mile south of Ophelia Inlet at mile marker 24 to the point of Cape Lookout at mile marker 44. Additionally, the back route on South Core Banks would be extended from mile marker 44a to mile marker 44b; this by-pass section of back route would only be open when the area of the Cape closes to through traffic. Ramps 24, 25, 26a, 26b, 27, 28, 29, 29a, 29b, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35a, 35b, 36, 37a, 37b, 38, 39, 40, 41a, 41b, 42a, 42b, 43, 44a, 44b, 45. Designated Miscellaneous ORV Routes A marked route from the beach to the Portsmouth Village parking area through Portsmouth Flats. Marked routes within the Long Point and Great Island Cabin Camp areas including vehicle ferry landings. Designated parking areas at Long Point, Great Island, and the Cape Lookout Light Station area, and the marked routes to these areas. Marked Routes within the Cape Lookout Village Historic District. Marked sound-side access routes: North Core Banks—mile marker 9, mile marker 12, mile marker 18. South Core Banks—mile marker 26.5, mile marker 31.5, mile marker 35.5 (Codds Creek), mile marker 45. Areas Closed to ORVs Sections of the islands isolated from designated ferry landings through the formation of new inlets, such as Middle Core Banks. All areas of the park not designated for ORV use. Pedestrian-Only Areas All other areas of the Seashore not designated for ORVs above, including Shackleford Banks Entire area, year round closure. Long Point Seasonal pedestrian only area May 1 to September 14, on the ocean beach at Long Point Cabin Camp from ramp 16 to ramp 17a (approximately 0.50 miles). An ORV route will be established through this area. Great Island Seasonal pedestrian only area May 1 to September 14, on the ocean beach at the Great Island Cabin Camp pedestrian-only area from ramp 29 to ramp 30 (approximately 1.9 miles), to be determined by beach profile. An ORV route will be established through this area. Codds Creek Seasonal pedestrian only area May 1 to September 14, on the ocean beach near Codds Creek for a total closure of 0.8 miles between mile marker/ramps 35a and 35b for pedestrians only. Light Station A year-round pedestrian-only area at the lighthouse would run from ramp 41a to ramp 41b for a total closure of approximately 0.7 miles. Power Squadron Spit A year-round pedestrian-only area at the lighthouse would run from Mile Marker 46.2 to the end of the Spit.

    (8) Superintendent's closures. (i) The Superintendent may temporarily limit, restrict, or terminate access to routes or areas designated for off-road use after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives.

    (ii) The public will be notified of such closures through one or more of the methods listed in § 1.7 of this chapter.

    (iii) Violation of any closure or restriction is prohibited.

    (9) Rules for vehicle operation. (i) Notwithstanding North Carolina law, including the definition of “Public Vehicular Area,” the operator of an ORV anywhere in the Seashore, whether in motion or parked, must comply with all North Carolina traffic laws that would apply if the operator were operating the vehicle on a North Carolina highway. ATVs/UTVs are not allowed on highways under North Carolina traffic law. However, this special regulation would allow ATVs/UTVs use within the Seashore, and would require ATVs/UTVs operators to comply with this and other applicable regulations, and non-conflicting North Carolina law in the same manner as all other vehicles operating off-road.

    (ii) In addition to the requirements of part 4 of this chapter, the following restrictions apply:

    (A) A vehicle operator must yield to pedestrians on all designated ORV routes.

    (B) The speed limit for off road driving is 25 mph, unless otherwise designated.

    (C) A vehicle operator must slow to 15 mph when traveling within 100 feet or less of any person, vehicle, campsite, structure or while pulling a trailer.

    (D) When driving on a designated route, an operator must lower the vehicle's tire pressure sufficiently to maintain adequate traction.

    (E) Vehicles may only be transported to the Seashore by NPS authorized ferries.

    (10) Night driving restrictions. (i) Hours of operation and night driving restrictions are listed in the following table:

    Hours of Operation/Night Driving Restrictions December 16 through March 15 Seashore closed to recreational ORV use. March 16 through April 30 and September 15 through December 15 All designated ORV routes are open 24 hours a day. May 1 through September 14 Designated ORV routes are closed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. The back route is open 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. March 16 through December 15 Designated ORV routes within cabin areas at Long Point and Great Island are open 24 hours a day.

    (ii) Maps are available in the office of the Superintendent and on the Seashore's Web site that show routes closed due to resource and visitor protection.

    (11) Parking permit. (i) A parking permit issued by the Superintendent is required for long-term vehicle parking at designated locations.

    (ii) Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from December 16 through March 15.

    (12) Park violations. (i) Violating any of the provisions of this paragraph, or the terms, conditions, or requirements of an ORV or other permit authorizing ORV use is prohibited.

    (ii) A violation may also result in the suspension or revocation of a NPS permit by the Superintendent.

    (13) Information collection. As required by 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements contained in this paragraph. The OMB approval number is 1024-0026. The NPS is collecting this information to provide the Superintendent data necessary to issue ORV special use permits. The information will be used to grant a benefit. The obligation to respond is required to order to obtain the benefit in the form of the ORV permit.

    Dated: December 9, 2015. Karen Hyun, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31793 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 15-136] Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rules.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission seeks comment on ways to promote competition for Inmate Calling Services (ICS), video visitation, rates for international calls, and considers an array of solutions to further address areas of concern in the (ICS) industry.

    DATES:

    Comments due January 19, 2016. Reply comments due February 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 12-375 and/or rulemaking number 15-136, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynne Engledow, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1540 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket: 12-375, released November 5, 2015. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following Internet Address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1105/FCC-15-136A1.pdf.

    The complete text may be purchased from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request alternative formats for persons with disabilities (e.g. accessible format documents, sign language, interpreters, CARTS, etc.) send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    I. Discussion A. Promoting Competition

    1. While we adopted regulations in the November 5, 2015 Report and Order to correct failures in the ICS market, the Commission generally prefers to rely on competition over regulation. We seek additional comment on whether there are ways to promote competition within the ICS market to enable the Commission to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein in the future. We also seek comment on the extent to which the reforms adopted today facilitate a properly functioning market.

    2. In the 2012 NPRM, (78 FR 4369) the Commission noted that the First Wright Petition asked the Commission to “mandate the opening of the ICS market to competition.” In the First Wright Petition, the Petitioners further requested that the Commission address high ICS rates by prohibiting exclusive ICS contracts and collect-call-only restrictions at privately administered prisons, and requiring such facilities to permit multiple long-distance carriers to interconnect with prison telephone systems. The Commission sought comment on these proposals but noted that ICS contracts “are typically exclusive.” In the 2013 Order (78 FR 68005), the Commission observed that while it had previously held that competition existed among ICS providers to provide service to correctional facilities, facilities opposed the allowance of multiple providers due to security concerns. The Commission sought comment on whether security issues were still a legitimate reason for limiting competition within correctional facilities, and whether any technological advances had changed the justification for such exclusive use. The Commission asked similar questions in the Second FNPRM, and requested comment regarding any costs that may be incurred by the introduction of multiple providers within a single facility, any additional barriers to competition within a facility, and how to allow greater competition without banning exclusive ICS contracts.

    3. In response, commenters raised concern about requiring facilities to utilize multiple providers at the same location. Many commenters assert that security could be compromised if more than one ICS provider operated at a single facility. For instance, GTL notes that “investigators would have to conduct duplicative search procedures” which could compromise “law enforcement's ability to monitor and track inmate calling for victim protection, investigative resources, and other public safety purposes.” Securus warns that officers would need to be trained in every system and that having to check multiple systems could lead to a delay in officers' ability to react. Commenters also note potential increased administrative burdens and complexities for correctional facilities in order to install and maintain separate telephone systems. Securus asserts such complexities could include the need to create complex bids to allow for multiple providers, negotiate and oversee multiple contracts, review and process vendor payments and address vendor disputes. Commenters assert that these increased burdens to correctional facilities would likely lead to higher inmate ICS costs. Some commenters say that requiring multiple providers per facility could lead small facilities to eliminate ICS altogether. GTL states that, “[i]f provision of ICS at facilities with multiple providers is not financially feasible for each provider, then facilities will not have multiple providers, regardless of what rules the Commission promulgates.” Some commenters suggest that banning exclusive contracts would lead to lower capital investment resulting in lower and less predictable call quality. But HRDC suggests that “[o]nly when consumers are afforded the choice to select telecommunications providers that offer the best service at the lowest price will a competitive and free market prevail in the ICS industry.”

    4. We seek additional comment on this issue because the record also indicates there may be multiple providers in some facilities. How common is this practice? Does it indicate that not all facilities enter into exclusive ICS contracts? If the Commission finds it necessary to ban exclusive ICS contracts to encourage greater competition in providing ICS in correctional institutions, we seek comment on our legal authority to do so. Would such a ban serve the express purposes of section 276(b)(1), namely to promote competition and the widespread deployment of payphone services? How should existing, exclusive ICS contracts be treated if the Commission decided to ban exclusive contracts? Should they be abrogated, grandfathered, subject to a transition period or some other treatment? We seek information on the extent to which multiple providers currently serve different regions of the country. Specifically, are there even multiple ICS providers available to serve each correctional institution? Are there correctional facilities that can only be served by one ICS provider?

    5. Are there ways to mitigate concerns raised in the record that multiple providers could increase burdens and make it “more difficult . . . to maintain security”? How could allowing competition inside correctional institutions decrease end-user rates? Would facilities, as suggested in the record, eliminate ICS if the Commission banned exclusive contracts? If so, would it be necessary for the Commission to take action to prevent this practice? We seek comment on our legal authority to do so. Is it feasible for multiple providers to serve the same facility without having to build out their own separate infrastructure, for example by offering some form of secure, dial-around service? If so, could the Commission require ICS providers to offer such a service? Is it possible for multiple providers to co-exist at a single facility without compromising important security features and increasing infrastructure and personnel costs? Would technological advances address such concerns? Would requiring multiple providers in institutions, by prohibiting providers from bidding on exclusive contracts, lead to lower capital investment and ultimately affect call quality, as suggested by both GTL and Pay Tel? Finally, should the Commission, as suggested, first adopt rate and ancillary service charge reform and then determine if additional steps are necessary and perhaps revisit the idea of intra-facility competition then?

    B. Video Calling and Other Advanced Inmate Communications Services

    6. Our core goals for inmates and their families, friends, clergy and lawyers remain the same regardless of the technologies used—ensuring competition and continued widespread deployment of ICS and the societal benefits that they bring. Since the Commission adopted the 2013 Order, we have seen an increase in the use of video calling, including video visitation. Given the lack of competitive pressures and the market failure the Commission has identified in the ICS market, we are concerned that rates for video calling and video visitation services that do not meet the definition of ICS could be used as a way to allow ICS providers to recover decreased rates as a result of the reforms adopted herein. We seek further comment on these newer technologies, to gain a better understanding of their use, the costs to providers and rates to consumers, and to identify any trend of moving away from more traditional ICS technologies. We seek comment on whether the incentives that allowed ICS rates to exceed just, reasonable, and fair levels might also occur for video calls and the action needed to address such issues.

    7. Background. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on “the impact of technological advancements on the ICS industry.” The Commission also invited comment on its legal authority to regulate the rates for services provided over newer technologies. The Commission received insight from commenters, but additional information was necessary to gain a fuller understanding of video visitation and other advanced services. Accordingly, the Commission asked supplemental questions about these services in the Second FNPRM. For example, the Commission specifically sought “a greater factual understanding of the availability of these and other services,” among other issues. The record received in response to the Second FNPRM provided us with further detail about the issues surrounding these services, but we again seek additional information on some questions addressed in both the FNPRM and Second FNPRM, as well as other areas that we have determined warrant further consideration. We specifically seek comment on video calls, including, but not limited to, video visitation, as the record indicates that such technology is growing in use in correctional institutions. We also ask questions about other advanced services described in the record.

    8. Discussion. Video calling has become another way for inmates to make contact with the outside world in addition to in-person visits and ICS via telephones hanging on the wall. One commenter suggested that video visitation systems, “which allow both video and non-video calls at unregulated rates, email, text messaging, face-to-face visits, mail and hearing-impaired systems,” actually compete with ICS providers. We seek comment on how pervasive video visitation services are in prisons and jails. How many facilities allow such services? Is there a difference in availability between prisons and jails? How many providers offer these services? Are there providers of video visitation that are not also providers of traditional ICS, or do the same companies offer both services? Do commenters believe certain forms of video visitation are in fact distinct from ICS? If so, what feature(s) make them distinct? For instance, might intra-institution video visitation facilities that require the friend or family member to come to the institution in order to have a video visit fall inherently outside the definition of ICS as compared to video visitation between the inmate in the institution and a friend or family member in a remote location? Do certain forms of video visitation use devices other than “inmate telephones” as the term is defined in our rules? We also ask commenters to provide data on the minutes of use for video calls and whether and how these minutes of use have grown over the last few years. How common are video visitation only companies, as compared to traditional ICS providers?

    9. We are particularly interested in the rates that providers of video calls charge for this service compared to traditional ICS. How are these rates established? For example, the Illinois Campaign states that one provider “typically charges a dollar a minute for a video visit.” PPI suggests that the rate may fluctuate between as low as $0.33 per minute for certain providers up to $1.50 per minute for others. We seek detailed information about the rates video visitation providers charge for these services. What is a typical rate charged for video visitation? Does the rate differ between prisons and jails? How much, if at all, do the rates for video visitation fluctuate based on the type or size of the facility? If there is a difference between charges for facility type or size, what are the reasons for the differences? Are the rates for these services different from the rates for traditional ICS? If so, what is the justification for the difference? To the extent that video visitation providers are charging rates that exceed our interim caps, have those providers been able to explain why their services are not a form of ICS that is not subject to those caps? If there are strictly video visitation providers who do not provide other forms of ICS, do their rates differ from those set by traditional ICS providers? Does the end-user rate fluctuate by call volume or technology used?

    10. What limits or protections would need to be implemented to provide relief from or prevent excessive rates for video visitation services, to the extent that they are not already being treated as forms of ICS? Are the ancillary service charges for video visitation comparable to those of traditional ICS? PPI explains that certain ICS providers that also provide video visitation charge different amounts for credit card transaction fees depending on the technology used by the inmate. Is this typical for ancillary fees and charges in general? Do video visitation providers bundle this service with traditional ICS or other services, and does that affect the rates users pay for video visitation? Do providers pay site commissions on video calls? If so, we ask commenters to file information on the magnitude of these payments.

    11. News articles and commenters indicate that some ICS providers, as a condition for offering video calling, have eliminated in-person visitation entirely. We seek comment on how common conditions, such as eliminating in-person visits, are to offering video visitation services. What cost savings do institutions experience, if any, by moving away from in-person visits? What effects do conditions such as the elimination of in-person visitation have on inmates and their decisions to use video visitation or traditional ICS? Are inmates and their families given a choice? Do they have input into the decision to eliminate in-person visits? Does the practice of eliminating or reducing in-person visitation differ between jails and prisons? The record indicates that some video visitation contracts may also include a quota system, mandating a minimum number of usages of the technology per month. What are the consequences if such quotas are not met? How frequently are such conditions included in video visitation contracts? Are there other requirements like this that video visitation providers include in their contracts? One commenter, for example, hypothesized that “if commissions on phone services are restricted, providers could include with the phone services a video visitation system and, as an incentive to select them, offer to charge for on-site visits while offering a large commission on the consumer paid visitation services to compensate for commissions restricted on the inmate phone calling.” Is this a practice that occurs, or is likely to occur in some facilities offering video visitation?

    12. We also seek comment on the benefits of video visitation as compared to traditional ICS. In facilities that offer both video visitation and traditional ICS, what percentage of inmates and their families utilize video visitation? For the inmates and families that do use video visitation, how frequent is their use? What is the comparative percentage between video visitation usage and traditional ICS usage? Are inmates and their families more apt to use video visitation in jails or prisons, or is there no notable difference based on the type or size of facility? We seek comment on the impact video calling has on inmate connectivity with friends and family. For example, is there evidence that video calling has reduced or increased the frequency of connectivity with friends and family because they may be charged by the minute, while friends and family do not have to pay for an in-person visit?

    13. We seek general comment on the costs to providers of video visitation. Are there additional costs to ICS providers in developing, provisioning, or offering video visitation services? Are there costs to the correctional facilities for provisioning video visitation services? Do ancillary service charges and site commissions affect video visitation rates? If so, how?

    14. We have made clear that our authority to regulate ICS is technology neutral. We also note that certain commenters have specifically agreed that we have authority to regulate video visitation. For example, PPI suggests that we should “regulate the video visitation industry so that the industry does not shift voice calls to video visits.” To the extent that video visitation is not already a form of ICS that is subject to our ICS rules, is this a suggestion we should pursue? Are there any barriers to the Commission specifically regulating video visitation service that do not constitute inmate telephone service under section 276?

    15. HRDC and PPI have suggested that the same perverse incentives that have harmed the traditional ICS market also harm the video visitation market. We seek additional comment on whether there is a similar market failure for video visitation and other advanced services as the market failure described above for traditional ICS. Keeping in mind the Commission's stated goals of increased communication at just, reasonable, and fair rates, what steps can be taken to prevent or alleviate problems in video visitation that have prompted our action with regard to traditional ICS? Would adopting rate caps be effective to ensure just, reasonable, and fair rates for video visitation that does not meet the definition of ICS? To the extent the record indicates that a similar failure is occurring in the market for video calling as we witnessed for traditional ICS, we seek comment on adopting rate caps and reforms to ancillary service charges to ensure that video calls and video visitation do not create loopholes that providers may exploit and undermine the reforms adopted herein.

    16. Some commenters are concerned that bundling regulated and unregulated products together harms the market for ICS. Would prohibiting IC providers' bundling of regulated and unregulated products together in contractual offerings alleviate some of the problems with current rates charged for advanced services? What other kinds of advanced services are available to inmates? Are they available commonly in most facilities, or only in certain ones? What is the demand for these services and what rates and fees are charged? What additional functionalities do they offer? Do they provide any greater benefits to inmates, their families, or others, than traditional services? What are ICS providers' rates for other services such as email, voicemail or text messaging? The record indicates that some ICS providers offer tablet computers and kiosks that allow inmates to access games, music, educational tools, law library tools and commissary ordering. What is the compensation mechanism for access to these offerings? What are ICS providers' rates for such services, including both service-specific rates and “all-you-can-eat” plans?

    17. We also seek comment on the implications of offering video calls, including video visitation, for inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing. Increased deployment of video call systems has the potential to provide inmates who are able to communicate using American Sign Language (ASL) with the ability to access and use VRS, as well as providing direct communications with other ASL users who have video communications access. We note, however, that VRS and videophone users require a smooth, uninterrupted transmission of signal to communicate effectively in ASL. What range of bandwidths and broadband speeds are currently provided or planned for video call systems? What bandwidth and broadband speed are the minimum necessary for effective video communications between ASL users? In addition, what types of video technology are currently used in video call systems? To what extent are video call systems interoperable with the video communications systems used by VRS providers? Should such interoperability be required? If video call systems are used to provide accessible video communications services to deaf inmates, what steps need to be taken to ensure that any charges for such service are fair, just, and reasonable, given that for deaf inmates, such services are functionally equivalent to voice communication? Finally, we seek comment on how prevalent VRS is in correctional institutions.

    C. Recurring Data Collection

    18. As discussed above, we adopt a second, one-time Mandatory Data Collection to occur two years from the effective date of this Order. In this data collection, we will require all ICS providers to submit ICS cost, calling, company and contract information as well as facility, revenue, ancillary fee and advanced service information. We found the data received in response to the 2013 Mandatory Data Collection to be beneficial, and anticipate that the forthcoming additional data will also be helpful to ensure that ICS rates and practices remain just, reasonable, and fair, in keeping with our statutory mandate.

    19. Throughout this proceeding, several commenters suggest that the Commission impose additional periodic reviews to “ensure that the reforms create and maintain the proper incentives to drive ICS rates to competitive levels.” We have found in the Order that for the time being, only a one-time additional collection is warranted. We seek comment, however, on extending in the future the Mandatory Data Collection adopted in this Order into a recurring data submission. Should providers be required to file the cost data described above in the Mandatory Data Collection annually? Why or why not? Do commenters agree that an ongoing annual data collection would provide the Commission with more fulsome data with which to help “drive end user rates to competitive levels?” Since ICS contracts typically run at least three to five years, with one-year extension options, is there benefit in collecting more than several years' worth of cost data in order to obtain a more accurate picture about ICS costs? Some commenters have asserted that upfront investment costs in certain ICS facilities are very high. Would collecting ICS cost data over more than one or two years lead to a more accurate economic picture for such investments? Would an ongoing ICS cost data collection provide the Commission a clearer picture of the industry than a one-time data collection? Would the benefit of such data submissions to the Commission, and its continued monitoring and regulation of the ICS industry, outweigh any potential burden on ICS providers?

    D. Contract Filing Requirement

    20. In the 2013 Order the Commission reminded providers of their obligations to comply with existing rules, including rules requiring that ICS providers that are non-dominant interexchange carriers make their current rates, terms, and conditions available to the public via their company Web sites. In 2014, the Commission sought comment on “how to ensure that rates and fees are more transparent to consumers” and specifically on the requirement that ICS providers notify their customers regarding the ICS options available to them and the cost of those options.

    21. Several commenters have expressed concern over a lack of transparency regarding ICS rates and fees. HRDC asserts “almost a total lack of transparency on the part of both ICS providers and the government agencies from which they secure their monopoly contracts.” HRDC further contends that “state agencies often create obstacles to inhibit the public records process that require [sic] consumers and other organizations to unnecessarily expend time and money to obtain records designated by law to be “public” records.” HRDC suggests that the Commission require “all ICS providers to post their contracts with detention facilities on their Web sites where they are publicly available.” Mr. Baker, of the Alabama PSC, asserts that “lack of transparency in the ICS industry is problematic” and recommends several solutions, including requiring providers to submit to the Commission and to state commissions “upon request or routinely if requested, a copy of the contract from each facility serviced as well as the provider's response to any facility invitation to bid or request for proposal.”

    22. Securus disagrees with these suggestions and asserts that what HRDC calls “public documents often contain information that is protected from disclosure under the very statutes, like the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, that HRDC invokes” as a reason for mandating their disclosure. Securus asserts that such protected information includes “non-public financial data, proprietary information about patented and patentable technology, and the operation of crucial security features.” Securus contends that requiring the production of ICS contracts “could contravene federal and state disclosure statutes.” Securus further asserts that, even if it were able to enact the “appropriate, lawful redaction” needed to protect sensitive and confidential data, the production of such contracts would be “far too broad and too burdensome.” Finally, Securus asserts that such contract production will be unnecessary if certain reform proposals are adopted, such the Joint Provider Proposal provision requiring all ICS providers to annually certify full compliance with all federal and Commission rules and regulations.

    23. Section 211 of the Act grants the Commission authority to require common carriers to “file with the Commission copies of contracts and agreements relating to communications traffic.” Section 43.51 of the Commission's rules specifies that any dominant communications common carrier “must file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of execution, a copy of each contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization, operating agreement or other arrangement to which it is a party and amendments thereto” that relate to “[t]he exchange of services” and “matters concerning rates.” The Commission has also clarified that “only non-dominant carriers treated with forbearance are not required to file contracts,” whereas non-dominant carriers who are not treated with forbearance are still subject to filing requirements because “material filed by [non-dominant] carriers subject to streamlined regulations may be useful in the performance of monitoring.”

    24. We share commenters' concern that ICS contracts are not sufficiently transparent. We also share the concern of commenters who assert that members of the public must “unnecessarily expend time and money to obtain records” of ICS contracts. We also recognize the evidence suggesting that the information regarding ICS contracts and rates that is publically available may not be as reliable as the actual contract.

    25. Should the Commission require ICS providers to file all contracts, including updates, under its section 211(b) authority? Does the annual reporting requirement meet this transparency objective? Are there any reasons such a requirement would not apply to all ICS providers or result in the filing of all ICS contracts? We seek comment on the costs and benefits related to contract filing. Would such a requirement be overly burdensome to ICS providers? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Would such requirement conflict with any other state or federal laws or requirements, such as the Freedom of Information Act? How should the contracts be filed with the Commission? To allow greater public accessibility to ICS contracts, we seek comment on requiring ICS providers to file their contracts with the Commission, in a newly assigned docket, via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) within 30 days of entering into a new contract. What would trigger the need to file an updated contract and how quickly after execution should new or updated contracts be filed? In what format should contracts be filed? What are the best ways to handle issues related to confidentiality? Would the Protective Order in effect in this docket adequately cover any confidentiality issues that might arise surrounding contracts that might be filed with us? We seek comment on these and any other potential issues that may arise related to the potential filing of ICS contracts with the Commission. For example, should the Commission adopt additional tools to help it prevent contract-related gaming such as that described above? What do commenters suggest as additional means to combat such gaming?

    E. International Calling Rates

    26. In the 2013 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the prevalence of international ICS calling and on the need to reform international ICS rates. The Commission also sought comment on its legal authority to regulate international ICS and on what rates should apply to international ICS, should the Commission assert jurisdiction. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought “updated comment on international ICS and the need for Commission reform focused on such services.”

    27. In response, several commenters urge the Commission to regulate international ICS rates. The record demonstrates that many inmates either lack access to international ICS or that such services are only available at very high rates. Numerous international ICS calling rates far exceed the rates permitted for interstate ICS calls, with some international rates from county correctional institutions set as high as $17.85 to $45 for a 15-minute call. Friends and family members who live outside the United States and who wish to stay in contact with those who are incarcerated pay the price of such high rates. Commenters also suggest that immigrant detainees are particularly vulnerable to high phone rates, due to several factors, including their need to stay in touch with family abroad and the centrality of phone access to immigration proceedings. We seek comment on whether and how we should act to improve inmates' and detainees' access to ICS for international calls, as well as what rates should apply to such calls. We seek comment on applying the adopted rate caps to all international calls.

    28. Legal Authority to Reform International Rates. Longstanding precedent establishes the Commission's authority to ensure that payphone service providers—including providers of ICS—“are fairly compensated for international as well as interstate and intrastate calls.” In addition, section 201 provides the Commission with the authority to ensure that carriers' rates and practices for interstate and “foreign” communications are just and reasonable, and grants the Commission authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” Based on these provisions, we tentatively conclude that the Commission has authority to reform international ICS rates as necessary to ensure that they are fair, just, and reasonable. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

    29. Rates for International Calling. Although several parties note that rates for international ICS calls are very high in some facilities, the record contains relatively little information about the specific costs, if any, ICS providers incur in providing international calling or what would constitute just, reasonable, and fair compensation for international ICS calls. The Mandatory Data Collection required providers to submit their costs related to the provision of ICS, including the provision of international calling. Responses to the Mandatory Data Collection, however, did not separate out costs for international calls from costs for the provision of interstate and intrastate calls. Thus, we lack information about the costs providers incur in providing international ICS.

    30. We seek comment on extending our rate caps for interstate and intrastate calls to international calls. Would establishing international rates at levels consistent with our rate caps ensure that ICS users do not pay rates that are unfair or that are unjustly or unreasonably excessive? Would capping rates for international calls at the same levels as we have established for interstate and intrastate calls allow providers to receive fair compensation? If not, why not? Would allowing a higher rate for international calls lead to over-recovery by providers, as their costs for international calls are already factored into the rate caps we set to govern interstate and intrastate ICS rates? Would the benefit of breaking out international calls be sufficient to justify the added complexity of adding a separate regime for international calls in addition to the rate caps we adopt in the accompanying Order? What percentage of ICS providers' minutes of use do international calling minutes constitute? For example, would a relatively low volume of international calls weigh against establishing a separate rate regime for such calls, particularly given that the costs of international calls are already included in the costs we used to set the rate caps for interstate and intrastate ICS?

    31. There is evidence that many of the approximately 400,000 immigrants detained in this country each year are held in local jails and prisons that have contracted with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). ICS rates and policies were discussed at the Commission's 2014 ICS Workshop. The record indicates that ICE “detainees are charged . . . a uniform rate of 15 cents per minute for international calls to landlines and 35 cents per minute for international calls to mobile phones,” with “no additional connection fees or ancillary charges.” We seek comment on these rates. Should the Commission establish separate rate caps for international calls that terminate to landline devices and for those that terminate to mobile devices? If so, what rates should apply to each type of call? How challenging would it be for ICS providers to bill different rates for different types of international calls? Is it administratively feasible for ICS providers to distinguish between calls to landline phones versus calls to mobile devices? Should rates vary depending on which foreign country the inmate is calling? Should there be a separate rate cap for international calls made by ICE detainees? Why or why not?

    32. The ICE ICS contract provides for free telephone calling services to select numbers through a “centralized pro bono platform which can be accessed at any detention facility.” According to the record, since this ICE contract was awarded, “the number of calls per detainee and minutes per detainee has increased substantially.” The record also indicates that detainees may make calls to 200 different countries for the same per-minute rates. We seek additional comment on the rates available under the ICE contract. Are these rates a reasonable approximation of what the Commission should adopt for international rate caps? Is ICE able to attain economies of scale that other facilities are not? Would it be more appropriate for the Commission to: (1) Adopt the ICE rates for all international calls, (2) subject international ICS calls to the same rate caps we adopt for interstate and intrastate calls, or (3) adopt a different rate regime that is not based on either the ICE rates or the existing rate caps? Are any of these options supported by cost data or other data in the record? If not, is such data available? If the Commission adopts rate caps that are higher than those currently offered by ICE facilities, should those facilities be allowed to raise their rates? We seek comment on ICE's decision to apply different rates for international landline ($0.15/minute) and international mobile ($0.35/minute) calls. Are these rates a reasonable approximation of providers' costs? Is this cost differential a similar one to that which other providers have experienced?

    33. We also seek further comment on other issues related to international calling from correctional facilities. The record indicates that although it is feasible for inmates to make international calls, international ICS calling is not always available. Commenters assert that the lack of availability of international calling is particularly burdensome to immigrant inmates and their families. We note that many immigration detainees are housed in county jails, rather than in ICE detention facilities. In addition, some inmates in jails and prisons have family and loved ones in countries outside the United States. Do most facilities allow international calling? If not, why not? Are any additional restrictions applied to such calls, such as time-of-day restrictions or prior-permission requirements? Should the Commission require the availability of international calls? If so, what legal authority would we rely on to adopt such a requirement? If we were to adopt such a requirement, what rates should apply to international calls and how should the Commission set such rates? Would subjecting international calls to the same rate caps that apply to interstate and intrastate ICS calls lead to providers or facilities discontinuing or restricting international ICS calls?

    F. Third-Party Financial Transaction Fees

    34. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on third-party financial transactions, and asked how it should ensure that money transfer service fees paid by ICS consumers are just and reasonable and fair. In the ICS context, third-party financial transaction fees consist of two elements: A fee from a third party, such as Western Union or Money Gram to transfer funds from a consumer to an inmate's ICS account, and an additional charge by an ICS provider for processing the funds transferred via the third party for the purpose of paying for ICS calls. After carefully reviewing the record, we determine, in the Order above, that the first aspect of third-party financial transaction, e.g., the money transfer or credit card payment, does not constitute an “ancillary service,” within the meaning of section 276. However, we assert jurisdiction over any additional fee or markup that the ICS provider might impose on the end user, and require ICS providers to pass third-party transaction fees to end users with no additional markup.

    35. Several commenters express concern about an additional issue related to these transactions: Potential revenue-sharing arrangements between ICS providers and financial companies. ICSolutions, for example, states that, despite the Commission's cap on third-party financial transaction fees, providers and vendors have an incentive to enter into fee-sharing arrangements with financial services companies, “thereby complying with the pass-through cost component, but still unnecessarily increasing consumers' cost.” ICSolutions urges the Commission to address this practice by imposing limits on the fees third-party financial companies can charge end users in an effort to prevent “secondary fee-sharing arrangements” between these companies and ICS providers that can “unnecessarily increase the cost of financial transactions to consumers.” Similarly, CenturyLink asserts that ICS providers can “divert transactions to certain third party processors, claiming high fees charged by the third party.” CenturyLink states that, by using a third-party payment processor, an ICS provider can inflate ancillary fees through a revenue-sharing agreement that adds a “direct or indirect markup” to ancillary services. CenturyLink argues that providers should be “permitted to use such services but not permitted to enter into arrangements that add a direct markup or indirect markup though a revenue sharing arrangement.” Securus, however, defends these calling arrangements as “innovative, valuable” additions to ICS that benefit consumer by giving them more options.

    36. We seek additional comment on the revenue-sharing issues discussed above. First, we seek comment on issues related to our jurisdiction over these transactions. Does the Commission have jurisdiction over third-party financial processor vendors, or over contracts between ICS providers and third-party vendors? Does our authority over ICS providers allow us to regulate providers' ability to enter into revenue-sharing arrangements with third-party vendors? Could these service charges constitute unjust and unreasonable practices, in violation of section 201(b), or a practice that would lead to unfair rates in violation of section 276, because, for example, the manner in which such charges are imposed artificially inflates the amounts that consumers pay to access ICS? How can we ensure that these revenue sharing arrangements are not used to circumvent our rules prohibiting markups on third-party fees? How common are the revenue-sharing arrangements described by CenturyLink and others? Do providers have any control over the fees established by third parties, such as Western Union or credit card companies, for payment processing functions? Are these revenue-sharing arrangements used to add direct or indirect markups to ancillary services? Should the Commission distinguish between revenue-sharing arrangements between providers and affiliated companies versus arrangements between providers and unaffiliated third parties? If so, what would be the legal basis for such a distinction? Does the Commission have greater authority over arrangements between ICS providers and their affiliates than it does over agreements between providers and unaffiliated entities? Assuming the Commission were to regulate arrangements between providers and affiliated companies that offer financial services, how would such regulations work? Specifically, how could the Commission prevent an affiliate from sharing revenues (or profits) with an ICS provider? Are there other factual or legal considerations the Commission should consider in determining whether and how to address arrangements between ICS providers and financial services companies?

    G. Cost/Benefit Analysis of Proposals

    37. Acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying costs and benefits, we seek to determine whether each of the proposals above will provide public benefits that outweigh their costs. We also seek to maximize the net benefits to the public from any proposals we adopt. For example, commenters have argued that inmate recidivism decreases with regular family contact. This not only benefits the public broadly by reducing crimes, lessening the need for additional correctional facilities and cutting overall costs to society, but also likely has a positive effect on the welfare of inmates' children. We seek specific comment on the costs and benefits of the proposals above and any additional proposals received in response to this Third Further Notice. We also seek any information or analysis that would help us to quantify these costs or benefits. We request that interested parties discuss whether, how, and by how much they would be impacted in terms of costs and benefits of the proposals included herein. Additionally, we ask that parties consider whether the above proposals have multiplier effects beyond their immediate impact that could affect their interest or, more broadly, the public interest. Further, we seek comment on any considerations regarding the manner in which the proposals could be implemented that would increase the number of people who benefit from them, or otherwise increase their net public benefit. We recognize that the costs and benefits may vary based on such factors as the correctional facility served and ICS provider. We have received minimal cost benefit analysis in this proceeding. Therefore, we request again that parties file specific analyses and facts to support any claims of significant costs or benefits associated with the proposals herein.

    II. Procedural Matters A. Filing Instructions

    38. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments and reply comments on this Third FNPRM must be filed in WC Docket No. 12-375.

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    B. Ex Parte Requirements

    39. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation ad not merely a list of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. If the oral presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    40. This Further Notice contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    41. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this document, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is available in Appendix F of the full-text copy of the Commission's Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released November 5, 2015. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    III. Ordering Clauses

    42. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    43. It is further ordered, that pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a), that this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be effective 30 days after publication of a summary thereof in the Federal Register except as noted otherwise above.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31253 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 243 Friday, December 18, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sedro-Woolley, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/;FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcwIAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held January 29, 2016, from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Mt. Baker Ranger District, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, Washington.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Mt. Baker Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Uloth, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 360-854-2601 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review project proposals; and

    2. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by January 8, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Erin Uloth, Designated Federal Officer, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, Washington 98284; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 360-856-1934.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: December 8, 2015. Erin Uloth, Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31841 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 14, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by January 19, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration

    Title: Survey of Customers of the Official Grain Inspection and Weighing System.

    OMB Control Number: 0580-0018.

    Summary of Collection: The United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71-87) (USGSA), and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) (AMA), authorizes the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to establish official inspection, grading, and weighing programs for grains and other agricultural commodities. Under the USGSA and AMA, Grain Inspection, the Packers and Stockyard Administration's (GIPSA) Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) offers inspecting, weighing, grading, quality assurance, and certification services for a user-fee to facilitate the efficient marketing of grain, oilseeds, rice, lentils, dry peas, edible beans, and related agricultural commodities in the global marketplace. The goal of FGIS and the official inspection, grading, and weighing system is to provide timely, high-quality, accurate, consistent, and professional services that facilitates the orderly marketing of grain and related commodities. FGIS will collect information using a link to the survey available on its main Web site.

    Need and Use of the Information: The survey is separated into two parts, customers and non-customers. FGIS is seeking feedback from customers to evaluate the services provided by the official inspection, grading, and weighing programs. Information collected will help to determine where and to what extent services are satisfactory, and where and to what extent they can be improved. FGIS will collect information from entities, such as potential customers or industry representatives that are not currently utilizing FGIS services. Information collected from non-customers will assist FGIS in fully meeting the domestic and international needs of the grain industry as they evolve. The information will be shared with other managers and program leaders who will be responsible for making any necessary improvements at the office/agency, program, and project level.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government

    Number of Respondents: 1,100.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 113.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31914 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE365 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public hearings and webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold eight public hearings and a webinar to solicit public comments on Shrimp Amendment 17A.

    DATES:

    The public hearings will be held January 5-14, 2016. The meetings will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates and times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Written public comments must be received on or before 5 p.m. EST on Friday, January 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public documents can be obtained by contacting the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their Web site at www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Meeting addresses: The public hearings will be held in Ft. Myers and Tampa, FL; Palacios and Brownsville, TX; Biloxi, MS; Tillman's Corner, AL, Houma and Gretna, LA, and one webinar. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Public comments: Comments may be submitted online through the Gulf Council's public portal by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on “CONTACT US”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agenda for the following eight hearings and one webinar are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on Amendment 17A to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. Shrimp Amendment 17A includes two actions. The first action addresses the expiration of the Federal shrimp permit moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. The second action addresses the royal red shrimp endorsement currently required to harvest royal red shrimp from the Gulf EEZ. Staff will then open the meeting for questions and public comments. The schedule is as follows:

    Locations, Schedules, and Agendas

    Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Webinar—6 p.m. EST; register to participate at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3167341526669430786

    Wednesday, January 6, 2016, Hampton Inn & Suites, 4350 Executive Circle, Fort Myers, FL 33916; telephone: (239) 931-5300.

    Thursday, January 7, 2016, Hilton Tampa Airport Westshore Hotel, 2225 North Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 877-6688.

    Monday, January 11, 2016, Port of Palacios, 1602 Main Street, Palacios, TX 77465; telephone: (361) 972-5556; IP Casino and Resort, 850 Bayview Avenue, Biloxi, MS; telephone: (228) 436-3000.

    Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Courtyard by Marriott, 3955 North Expressway, Brownsville, TX 78520; telephone: (956) 350-4600; Holiday Inn Mobile, 5465 Highway 90 West, Mobile, AL 33619; telephone: (251) 666-5600.

    Wednesday, January 13, 2016, Courtyard by Marriott, 142 Library Drive, Houma, LA 70360; telephone: (985) 223-8996.

    Thursday, January 14, 2016, Holiday Inn New Orleans Westbank, 275 Whitney Avenue, Gretna, LA 70053; telephone: (504) 366-8535.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31860 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE352 National Saltwater Angler Registry Program AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has established an annual fee of twenty-nine dollars ($29.00) for registration of anglers, spear fishers and for-hire fishing vessels to register under the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program.

    DATES:

    The registration fee will be required effective January 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Gordon C. Colvin, NMFS ST-12453, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gordon C. Colvin; (240) 357-4524; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The final rule implementing the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program, 50 CFR 600, subpart P, was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008. The final rule states that persons registering with NMFS must pay an annual fee effective January 1, 2011, and that NMFS will publish the annual schedule for such fees in the Federal Register. The current annual fee for registration was set at $25.00, effective August 1, 2013. NMFS policy requires that fees be reviewed every two years and be revised to reflect changes in estimated costs for administration of the program that requires the fees.

    NMFS has completed its biennial review and has determined that the annual registration fee for anglers, spear fishers and for-hire fishing vessels will be raised to twenty-nine dollars ($29.00). All persons registering on or after January 1, 2016, will be required to pay that registration fee, unless they are exempt as indigenous people per the provisions of 50 CFR 600.1410(f).

    Dated: December 11, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31776 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE364 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a two-day meeting of its Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Tuesday, January 5, and Wednesday, January 6, 2016; starting 9 a.m. on Tuesday and 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, and will adjourn approximately 2 p.m. on Wednesday.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Westshore Tampa Airport Hotel, 2225 N. Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 877-6688.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; email: [email protected]; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Chairman will start the meeting with introductions and adoption of agenda, and approval of minutes from the September 1-2, 2015 Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical (SSC) meeting; and selection of an SSC representative to attend the January 2016 Council meeting. The Committee will review the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) assessment prioritization process and will discuss the concept of best scientific information available. The Committee will receive an update on SEDAR 43 Gray Triggerfish Projections from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and will make recommendations for a new rebuilding plan including the selection of a projected recruitment scenario, time to rebuild in the absence of fishing, determination of a maximum probability of overfishing (P*) when setting the allowable biological catch (ABC) and recommendations for the overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC. The Committee will discuss a constant catch vs. a constant fishing mortality rate (F) approach to setting catch limits with respect to stability of management; and will receive a projection from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute on constant catch overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for west Florida shelf stock of hogfish. Next, the Committee will review the SEDAR 42 Red Grouper Benchmark Assessment. If the Committee accepts the assessment and sufficient information is available, the Committee will recommend overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels for constant F and constant catch for red grouper. The Committee will review an options paper for a possible framework action to adjust the recreational red snapper annual catch target (ACT) buffer; receive a presentation from the NMFS Southeast Regional Office on their methods for setting season length, and review methods for assigning probability of exceeding the annual catch limit (ACL) at a given ACT buffer. The Committee will receive a presentation from the SEFSC on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment and Management Strategy Evaluation as it pertains to multi-species; and will review Draft Amendment 44 regarding the setting of minimum stock size thresholds (MSST) and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxies. The Committee will review proposed revisions to the SEDAR process. The Committee will also review the terms of reference and project schedule for SEDAR 49—Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species, and select appointees for the data, assessment and review groups. Lastly, the Committee will review the SSC meeting schedule for 2016; and will discuss other business, if any.

    — Meeting Adjourns —

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “SSC meeting-2016-01”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31859 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA602 Marine Mammals; File No. 16109 AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a major amendment to Permit No. 16109-02 has been issued to Versar, Inc. (formerly GeoMarine, Inc.) (Responsible Party: Susanne Bates), 700 International Parkway, Suite 104, Richardson, TX 75081.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rosa L. González or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 11, 2014, notice was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 8159) that a request for an amendment Permit No. 16109-01 to conduct research on sea turtles and marine mammals had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.); the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216); the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The amended permit (No. 16109-02), issued December 2, 2015, authorizes the following changes to the permit: (1) Extended the action area north and south to include all U.S. waters from Maine to Florida; (2) added aerial surveys to the research methods; (3) added takes for Blainville's beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris), false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas); (4) increased the number of marine mammals and sea turtles that could be harassed; and (5) changed the frequency of vessel based surveys from once per season to twice a month, year-round. The permit expires May 15, 2017.

    An environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the analyses in the EA, NMFS determined that issuance of the permit would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on December 1, 2015.

    As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31879 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the procurement list.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete products and a service previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 1/17/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products:

    Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Pencil, Mechanical, Push Action; 7520-01-NIB-2331—Black, Fine Point (0.5 mm); 7520-01-NIB-2332—Black, Medium Point (0.7 mm).

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX.

    Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement.

    Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY.

    Distribution: A-List.

    Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Kit, Pipefitter Tools—5180-00-596-1501.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI.

    Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of requirement of the U.S. Army.

    Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command, Warren, MI.

    Distribution: C-List.

    Services:

    Service Type: Call Center Service.

    Service is Mandatory For: OPM, Retirement Service, Retirement Operations, 1137 Branchton Road, Boyers, PA.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Orion Career Works, Auburn, WA, Beacon Group SW., Inc., Tucson, AZ.

    Contracting Activity: Office of Personnel Management, Boyers Region (Non FISD), Boyers, PA.

    Service Type: Help Desk Support Service.

    Service is Mandatory For: US Army, Army Training Support Center, Combined Arms Center for Training, 3306 Wilson Avenue, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Orion Career Works, Auburn, WA.

    Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC-FDO Ft Eustis, Fort Eustis, VA.

    Deletions

    The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products:

    Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Hood, Spray Painters Protective—4240-LL-L08-5010.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Contract Services of Hawaii, Inc., Honolulu, HI.

    Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard IMF, Pearl Harbor, HI.

    Product Name(s)—NSN(s):

    Paper, Mimeograph and Duplicating—7530-00-285-3060, 7530-00-224-6754, 7530-00-239-9747, 7530-00-221-0805, 7530-01-074-1832, 7530-00-231-7125.

    Paper, Bond & Writing—7530-00-160-9165, 7530-00-515-1086.

    Paper, Duplicating, Liquid Process, White, 8 1/2” x 11”—7530-00-240-4768.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA.

    Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY.

    Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Pen, Ball Point, Retractable, BIO-WRITE, Ergonomic, Cushion Grip, 7520-01-424-4856—Black Ink, Fine Point, 7520-01-424-4876—Black Ink, Medium Point, 7520-01-424-4873—Blue Ink, Fine Point, 7520-01-424-4854—Blue Ink, Medium Point.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI.

    Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY.

    Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Module, Medical System—8465-00-NSH-0063.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA.

    Contracting Activity: W6QK ACC-APG Natick, Natick, MA.

    Service:

    Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service, U.S. Army Reserve, Lemma Whyman USARC, 145 Charlotte Street, Canandaigua, NY.

    Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: NYSARC, Inc., Seneca-Cayuga Counties Chapter, Waterloo, NY.

    Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QK ACC-PICA, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ.

    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31855 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2014-0042] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ACTION:

    30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Department of the Army has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted January 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frederick Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery—Defense Centers of Excellence (DCoE) Products.

    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    The Agency did not receive any comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71404).

    Current Actions: Processing a new Fast Track Generic.

    Type of Review: New Collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:

    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 40.

    Average number of Respondents per Activity: 250.

    Annual responses: 10,000.

    Frequency of Response: On Occasion/Transaction based.

    Average minutes per response: 10 minutes.

    Burden hours: 1,668 hours.

    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.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31826 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2015-0059] Information Collection Requirements; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DFARS Part 242, Contract Administration and Related Clause in DFARS 252 AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through April 30, 2016. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for three additional years.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0250, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0250 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Tresa Sullivan, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting, (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tresa Sullivan, 571-372-6089.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Information Collection in Support of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 242; Contract Administration and related clause in DFARS 252; OMB Control Number 0704-0250.

    Needs and Uses: The Government requires this information in order to perform its contract administration functions. DoD uses the information as follows:

    a. The information required by DFARS subpart 242.11 is used by contract administration offices to monitor contract progress, identify factors that may delay contract performance, and to ascertain potential contract delinquencies.

    b. The information required by DFARS 252.242-7004 is used by contracting officers to determine if contractor material management and accounting systems conform to established DoD standards.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 7,418.

    Responses per Respondent: 12.8.

    Annual Responses: 94,963.

    Average Burden per Response: 2.02 hours, approximately.

    Annual Burden Hours: 192,372.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Summary of Information Collection

    This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 242, Contract Administration and Audit Services, and the related clause at DFARS part 252.

    a. DFARS 242.11 requires DoD contract administration personnel to perform production surveillance to monitor contractor progress and identify any factors that may delay performance. The Government relies on the production progress reports provided by the contractor in the performance of this function.

    (2) DFARS 252.242-7004 requires a contractor to establish and maintain a material management and accounting system for applicable contracts, to provide results of system reviews, and disclose significant changes in its system.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31848 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2015-0058] Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); Contract Financing AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 19, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 232, Contract Financing, and the Clause at 252.232-7002, Progress Payments for Foreign Military Sales Acquisitions; OMB Control Number 0704-0321.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 124.

    Responses per Respondent: Approximately 26.6.

    Annual Responses: 3,300.

    Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 4,950 (includes 1,650 response hours plus 3,300 recordkeeping hours).

    Needs and Uses: Section 22 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2762) requires the U.S. Government to use foreign funds, rather than U.S. appropriated funds, to purchase military equipment for foreign governments. To comply with this requirement, the Government needs to know how much to charge each country. The clause at 252.232-7002, Progress Payments for Foreign Military Sales Acquisitions, requires each contractor whose contract includes foreign military sales (FMS) requirements to submit a separate progress payment request for each progress payment rate, and to submit a supporting schedule that clearly distinguishes the contract's FMS requirements from U.S. requirements. The Government uses this information to determine how much of each country's funds to disburse to the contractor.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Public Collections Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31846 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Conduct Scoping Meeting for the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project General Reevaluation Report and Integrated EIS/EIR, County of Marin, CA AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to initiate the scoping process for the preparation of an Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for channel modification opportunities to Unit 2, 3 and 4 of the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project in Marin County, CA.

    DATES:

    A public scoping meeting will be held on January 14, 2016 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. (PST). Submit comments concerning this notice on or before February 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The scoping meeting location is: the Marin Arts and Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Ross, CA 94957-9601. Mail written comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Planning Branch, ATTN: Stephen M. Willis, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address, the project title and the Corps file number in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen M. Willis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Planning Branch, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco CA 94103-1398, (415) 503-6861, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Corps will address channel modification opportunities to Unit 4 of Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, CA, in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1962, Public Law 87-4, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, approved October 23, 1962, and amended by Section 204 of Public Law 89-789, the Flood Control Act of 1966, and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Modifications to Unit 4 may also require modifications to Units 2 and 3.

    Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 9 (MCFCWCD) is the lead agency and local sponsor in preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Corps and MCFCWCD have agreed to jointly prepare a Draft EIS/EIR to optimize efficiency and avoid duplication. The Draft EIS/EIR is intended to be sufficient in scope to address the Federal, state and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the proposed activities and permit approvals.

    The USACE's Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project is consistent and compatible with the District's Ross Valley Flood Control Program, the purpose of which is to manage flood risk in the Ross Valley watershed.

    Project Site and Background Information: Corte Madera Creek drains an area of approximately 28 square miles in Marin County, CA and discharges into the San Francisco Bay nine miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Unit 4 extends from downstream of the Lagunitas Road Bridge, near the upstream terminus of Unit 3, to the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Bridge right before the Ross/San Anselmo town line. Although Units 1, 2, and 3 channel modifications were completed in 1971, public concerns led to a delay in the planned actions for Unit 4. In 1996, Marin County requested the completion of Unit 4 by the Corps, and damages incurred by the December 2005 flood also renewed public interest in finding solutions to minimize the risk of future floods.

    Additional studies conducted by the Corps focused on evaluating the design performance of Units 3 and 4. These studies identified the abrupt transition between Units 3 and 4 created by the existing Denil fish ladder, the narrow channel condition on the east and west bank, and the Lagunitas Road Bridge as constrictions to flood flow. The Town of Ross replaced the Lagunitas Road Bridge in 2010 with a higher bridge profile to accommodate a greater flow capacity of approximately 5,400 cubic feet per second.

    A charrette was held in 2013 to restart the project study under the Corps' SMART Planning principles. SMART Planning is intended to be Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Risk Informed, and Timely planning to complete USACE feasibility studies in a cost-effective and efficient manner. More information on the SMART Planning process is available at http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/smart.cfm.

    Additional information on this project can be found at http://www.marinwatersheds.org/documents_and_reports/USACECorteMaderaCreekProject.html.

    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the project is to manage flood risk from Corte Madera Creek associated with Unit 4. The need of the project is to address channel modifications to Unit 4, from the upstream end of the existing Unit 3 concrete channel to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard at the border of Ross and San Anselmo, which may also require modifications to Units 3 and 2. Unit 3 extends from the upstream end of the concrete channel in Ross downstream to the College Avenue Bridge. Unit 2 extends from College Avenue Bridge downstream to Bon Air Bridge in Larkspur.

    Issues: Potentially significant issues associated with the project may include: hydrology, geology, land use and planning, population and housing, water and air quality, climate change, biological resources, transportation, noise, aesthetics, utilities and service systems, cultural resources, human health and safety, and social and economic effects, as well as cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Alternative actions will be evaluated that will consider fish passage for threatened and endangered fish species that migrate through the project area, riparian habitat, as well as other potential environmental issues of concern.

    Scoping Process: The Corps is seeking participation of all interested Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned private organizations or individuals through this public notice.

    The purpose of the public scoping meeting is to solicit comments regarding the potential impacts, environmental issues, and alternatives associated with the proposed action to be considered in the Draft EIS/EIR. The meeting place, date and time will be advertised in advance in local newspapers, and meeting announcement letters will be sent to interested parties. The Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report and EIS/EIR is expected to be available for public review and comment in the Fall of 2016 and a public meeting will be held after its publication.

    John C. Morrow, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31804 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Navigational Improvements to Manatee Harbor in Manatee County, FL AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of the feasibility study is to improve navigation in Manatee Harbor.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Aubree Hershorin at (904) 232-2136 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Description of the Proposed Action. Proposed navigational improvements to Manatee Harbor include deepening the harbor up to minus 43 feet and widening the harbor.

    2. Reasonable Alternatives. Various increments of widening and deepening, as well as other alternatives will be evaluated. The dredged material is expected to be suitable for placement in the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) located approximately 30 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay. Some material may be suitable for placement in dredged holes and for other purposes, and the study may evaluate the expansion of existing dredged material management areas. Other alternatives as identified during the scoping and plan formulation process will be considered.

    3. Scoping Process:

    a. Public and Agency Involvement. A scoping letter is being sent to agencies, commercial interests, and the public.

    b. Issues to be Analyzed in Depth in the DEIS. Important issues expected include impacts to protected species, seagrass, hardgrounds, socio-economic factors, and any other factors that might be determined during the scoping and plan formulation process.

    c. Possible Assignments for Input into the EIS among Lead and Potential Cooperating Agencies.

    —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Input concerning listed species, critical habitat, and other fish and wildlife resources. —National Marine Fisheries Service: Input concerning listed species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat. —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Input concerning disposal in the Tampa ODMDS. —The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the Lead agency and, together with the non-federal sponsor (Port Manatee), will assume responsibility for all other aspects of the EIS.

    d. Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements. The proposed action is subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Essential Fish Habitat requirements, National Historic Preservation Act, numerous other laws and executive orders, and any other requirements that might be identified during the scoping and plan formulation process.

    4. Scoping Meeting. A public scoping meeting will be held on January 20, 2016, from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Port Manatee Intermodal Center, 1905 Intermodal Circle, Palmetto, FL 34221.

    5. Date the DEIS Will Be Made Available to the Public. Dependent on the issues, alternatives, investigations, and other requirements identified during the scoping and plan formulation process; the Draft EIS should be available by November 2017.

    Dated: December 10, 2015. Eric P. Summa, Chief, Planning Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31807 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Intent To Compromise Claim Against the State of Washington Department of Services for the Blind AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Department of Education (Department) intends to compromise a claim against the State of Washington Department of Services for the Blind (Washington) now pending before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), Docket No. 15-30-R. Before compromising a claim, the Department must publish its intent to do so in the Federal Register and provide the public an opportunity to comment on this action.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on the proposed action on or before February 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning the proposed action to Marcus Hedrick, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6E220, Washington, DC 20202-2110.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marcus Hedrick. Telephone: 202-401-8316 or by email: [email protected].

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, you may call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed action. During and after the comment period you may inspect all public comments in Room 6E312, FB-6, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing Comments: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Background

    On March 10, 2015, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Assistant Secretary) issued two program determination letters (PDLs) seeking to recover a total of $730,053 of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State grant funds from Washington. Based on findings in single audits of Washington (Audit Control Numbers 10-12-38440 and 10-13-48310), these funds were determined by the Assistant Secretary to have been expended, during the fiscal years 2012 and 2013, in violation of the indirect cost provisions under the Education Department General Administrative Regulations at 34 CFR 76.560. Specifically, the PDLs indicated that Washington had charged indirect costs to the VR grant program without an approved indirect cost agreement, and identified $621,871 for recovery in fiscal year 2012 and $108,182 for recovery in fiscal year 2013.

    Washington filed Applications for Review of these PDLs with the OALJ on May 14, 2015. On June 9, 2015, the OALJ proposed processing the two appeals under one docket number, and with consent of the parties subsequently combined the appeals. On June 27, 2015, the OALJ granted the parties' Joint Motion to Request Mediation, Waive 81.39(a) and Suspend the Procedural Schedule (Joint Motion). Since the Joint Motion was granted, Washington and the Department have engaged in facilitated mediation to attempt to resolve the recovery action.

    The Department proposes to compromise the total claim to $530,053 (the fiscal year 2012 recovery will be reduced to $451,605 and the fiscal year 2013 recovery will be reduced to $78,447). The Department has determined that it would not be practical or in the public interest to continue proceeding, based on litigation risks and the cost of proceeding through the administrative, and possible court, process for this appeal. Also, in light of corrective actions Washington has taken, the Department does not anticipate this violation of the indirect cost provisions will recur. As a result, under the authority in 20 U.S.C. 1234a(j), the Department has determined that compromise of this claim to $530,053 is appropriate and in the public interest. The public is invited to comment on the Department's intent to compromise this claim. Additional information may be obtained by calling or writing the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audio tape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1234a(j).

    Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Thomas P. Skelly to perform the functions and duties of the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Education.

    Date: December 11, 2015. Thomas P. Skelly, Delegated to perform the functions and duties of the Chief Financial Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31900 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0142] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program Application Documents AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0142. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jon Utz, 202-377-4040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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.

    Title of Collection: Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program Application Documents.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0053.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,454,476.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 817,429.

    Abstract: This is collection of information includes the following documents: (1) Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Application and Promissory Note (Application and Promissory Note); (2) Instructions for Completing the Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Application and Promissory Note (Instructions); (3) Additional Loan Listing Sheet; (4) Request to Add Loans; and (5) Loan Verification Certificate (LVC). The Application and Promissory Note serves as the means by which a borrower applies for a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan and promises to repay the loan. The Instructions explain to the borrower how to complete the Application and Promissory Note. The Additional Loan Listing Sheet provides additional space for a borrower to list loans that he or she wishes to consolidate, if there is insufficient space on the Application and Promissory Note. The Request to Add Loans serves as the means by which a borrower may add other loans to an existing Federal Direct Consolidation Loan within a specified time period. The LVC serves as the means by which the U.S. Department of Education obtains the information needed to pay off the holders of the loans that the borrower wants to consolidate. This revision updates the forms to reflect regulatory changes, and revises language for greater clarity.

    Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31773 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct Scoping Meetings; and Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement; Colusa-Sutter 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, California (DOE/EIS-0514) AGENCY:

    Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Western Area Power Administration (Western) and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) are jointly proposing the new 500-kilovolt (kV) Colusa-Sutter (CoSu) Transmission Line Project (Project) to be located within Colusa and Sutter Counties, California. The Project would interconnect the California-Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) transmission system, near either Arbuckle or Maxwell, California, to the Central Valley Project (CVP) transmission system near Yuba City, California. This notice announces Western's decision to jointly prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in conjunction with SMUD's preparation of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental impact report (EIR). The joint EIS/EIR will examine the potential environmental effects of the CoSu Project.

    The joint EIS/EIR will address Western's proposed action of constructing the CoSu Project as well as making any necessary modifications to Western facilities to accommodate the new line; and SMUD's proposed action of whether or not to fund the proposed Project.

    This notice starts a 60-day public scoping period that will assist in the preparation of a Draft EIS/EIR. During the public scoping period, Western and SMUD are seeking public comments including issues, concerns, and opportunities that should be considered in the analysis of the proposed Project.

    DATES:

    The scoping period begins with the publication of this notice and closes on February 16, 2016.

    To provide the public an opportunity to review, discuss, and comment on the proposed Project, Western and SMUD will hold four public meetings during January 12-14, 2016. See Public Participation in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for public scoping meeting dates and locations.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the proposed scope of the Draft EIS/EIR for the CoSu Project may be mailed or emailed to: Mr. Andrew M. Montaño, Western Area Power Administration, Headquarters, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, email: [email protected] Comments on issues, potential impacts, or suggestions for additional alternatives may be provided at the public scoping meeting or submitted in writing to the address listed. To be considered in the Draft EIS/EIR, comments must be received prior to the close of the scoping period.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, please contact Andrew M. Montaño, at (720) 962-7253 or at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. For the most recent information and for announcements, please visit the Project Web site at: www.CoSuLine.com.

    For general information on DOE's NEPA review procedures or status of a NEPA review, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756; or email: [email protected]

    For general information on the SMUD CEQA review procedures or status of the CEQA review, please contact Ms. Emily Bacchini, Environmental Management Specialist, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 6201 S. Street, Mailstop H201, Sacramento, CA 95852-1830; telephone (916) 732-6334; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Western is a Federal agency under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that markets and transmits wholesale electrical power through an integrated 17,000-plus circuit mile, high-voltage transmission system across 15 central and western states.

    Western, the lead Federal agency for the EIS, will coordinate with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and potentially affected Native American tribes during the preparation of the EIS/EIR. Western will coordinate with SMUD in the preparation of the joint EIS/EIR. Agencies with legal jurisdiction or special expertise are invited to participate as cooperating agencies, as defined in 40 CFR 1501.6, in preparation of the EIS. Such agencies may make a request to Western to be a cooperating agency. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA process, as specified in 40 CFR 1501.6(b).

    SMUD is the primary distributor of electric power within an area of approximately 900 square miles in Sacramento County and a portion of Placer County, and serves over 624,000 electric customers. SMUD owns and operates an integrated electric system that includes transmission, distribution and generation facilities. SMUD is a member of the Transmission Agency of Northern California, which holds significant entitlements to obtain energy through the COTP. To use these rights, SMUD has long-term transmission service agreements with Western. SMUD's transmission system also contributes to and is affected by voltage stability, transmission system reliability, and security of the greater Sacramento-area transmission system. These imports allow higher demand levels to be reliably served at lower internal generation requirements, reducing carbon emissions from SMUD's natural gas generation facilities.

    Project Description and Alternatives

    SMUD submitted a transmission service request to Western under Western's Open Access Transmission Tariff for service between the COTP and SMUD's transmission system. Western did not have available transmission capacity to meet the service request on its existing facilities in the area; so SMUD proposed the construction of the CoSu Project. Western would build the Project as allowed by law pursuant to the Acts of Congress approved June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388); August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 844, 850); August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187); and August 4, 1977 (91 Stat. 565); as supplemented and amended. The CoSu Project would provide SMUD access to existing renewable resources in the Pacific Northwest and other markets, provide regional voltage support, and assist SMUD in planning for anticipated load growth. In addition, the CoSu Project would improve the network transmission infrastructure and import capability into the Sacramento area and ensures the continued safe and reliable operation of the regional transmission system.

    The proposed corridors to be studied and evaluated are within Colusa and Sutter Counties, California. The proposed Project would consist of the following primary components:

    1. Northern Corridor Alternative: constructing a new transmission line (approximately 44 miles in length) adjacent to Western's existing 230-kV Olinda-O'Banion and Keswick-O'Banion double circuit transmission lines. The Northern Corridor Alternative would interconnect the existing COTP transmission line system near the existing COTP's Maxwell Series Compensation Substation to Western's CVP transmission system near the existing Western's O'Banion Substation. The new transmission line would require the construction of an additional substation adjacent to the existing Maxwell Series Compensation Substation and an additional substation adjacent to the existing O'Banion Substation.

    2. Southern Corridor Alternative: constructing a new transmission line (approximately 27 miles in length) so that it interconnects along the existing COTP transmission line system approximately 8 miles northwest of the community of Arbuckle, California, and proceeds eastwardly towards the existing O'Banion Substation. The Southern Corridor Alternative would also require the construction of an additional substation adjacent to the existing COTP transmission line northwest of Arbuckle and an additional substation adjacent to the existing O'Banion Substation.

    3. Additionally, a Segment 1 Alternative also has been identified (approximately 9 miles in length) just west of the existing O'Banion Substation to provide an alternate north-to-south route for the Northern Corridor Alternative. Instead of following Western's existing 230-kV Olinda-O'Banion and Keswick-O'Banion double circuit transmission lines to the O'Banion substation, this segment would extend south, at a location approximately 30 miles from the Maxwell Substation, and then continue due east to connect to the O'Banion substation. Under this segment alternative, the new line would be located further away from the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge.

    Western will consider a No Action Alternative in the EIS/EIR. Under the No Action Alternative, for the purpose of establishing a baseline for impact analysis and comparison in the EIS/EIR, Western would not construct the proposed Project and the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation would not occur.

    Agency Responsibilities

    Western has determined that an EIS is appropriate under DOE NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR part 1021.1 Western would be the lead Federal agency for preparing the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5. The proposed Project would include construction of a new single-circuit 500-kV transmission line and associated substations on mostly private land. Western will invite other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to be cooperating agencies on the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6. Such agencies also may make a request to Western to be a cooperating agency by contacting Mr. Montaño at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this NOI also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action, in accordance with DOE regulations for Compliance with Floodplain and Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements at 10 CFR part 1022. The EIS will include a floodplain/wetland assessment and, if required, a floodplain/wetland statement of findings will be issued with the Final EIS or the Western Record of Decision (ROD).

    1 On November 16, 2011, DOE's Acting General Counsel restated the delegation to Western Area Power Administration's Administrator of all the authorities of the General Counsel with respect to environmental impact statements. See “Restatement of Delegations of Environmental Impact Statement Authorities,” November 16, 2011.

    Environmental Issues

    This notice is to inform agencies and the public of Western's and SMUD's intent to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the EIS/EIS. To help the public frame its comments, the following list contains potential environmental issues preliminarily identified for analysis in the EIS/EIR:

    • Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants;

    • Impacts on migratory birds;

    • Introduction of noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species;

    • Impacts on recreation and transportation;

    • Impacts on land use, wilderness, farmlands, and environmentally-sensitive areas;

    • Impacts on cultural or historic resources and tribal values;

    • Impacts on human health and safety;

    • Impacts on air, soil, and water resources (including air quality and surface water impacts);

    • Visual impacts; and

    • Socioeconomic impacts and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations (i.e., environmental justice).

    This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. Western invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS/EIR.

    Public Participation

    The EIS/EIR process includes a public scoping period; public scoping meetings; publication and public review of the Draft EIS/EIR; publication of a Final EIS/EIR; and publication of a ROD.

    Western and SMUD will hold four public scoping meetings at the following times and locations:

    (1) Tuesday, January 12, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Colusa Casino Community Room, 3770 California 45, Colusa, CA 95932;

    (2) Wednesday, January 13, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Colusa Casino Community Room, 3770 California 45, Colusa, CA 95932;

    (3) Wednesday, January 13, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Sutter Youth Organization Center, 7740 Butte House Road, Sutter, CA 95982;

    (4) Thursday, January 14, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Sutter Youth Organization Center, 7740 Butte House Road, Sutter, CA 95982.

    The meetings will be informal, and attendees will be able to speak directly with Western and SMUD representatives about the proposed Project. Attendees also may provide comments at these meetings. For the most recent information and for announcements, please visit the Project Web site at: www.CoSuLine.com.

    At the conclusion of the NEPA process, Western will prepare a ROD. Persons interested in receiving future notices, proposed Project information, copies of the EIS/EIR, and other information on the NEPA review process should contact Mr. Montaño at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The purpose of the scoping meetings is to provide information about the proposed Project, review Project maps, answer questions, and take oral and written comments from interested parties. All meeting locations will be handicapped-accessible. Anyone needing special accommodations should contact Mr. Montaño to make arrangements.

    The public will have the opportunity to provide written comments at the public scoping meetings. Written comments may also be sent to Mr. Montaño by email or U.S. Postal Service mail. To help define the scope of the EIS/EIR, comments should be received by Western no later than February 16, 2016.

    Dated: November 25, 2015. Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31902 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R08-OW-2015-0346; FRL-9940-34-Region 8] Issuance of NPDES General Permits for Wastewater Lagoon Systems Located in Indian Country in Region 8 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of NPDES general permits under the authority of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is hereby giving notice of its issuance of six National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lagoon general permits for wastewater lagoon systems located in Indian country in Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, & WY). These general permits are similar to the existing permits and will authorize the discharge of wastewater from lagoons located in Region 8 Indian country in accordance with the terms and conditions described therein.

    DATES:

    The general permits become effective on January 1, 2016 and will expire five years from that date. For purposes of seeking review of this permit pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(o) and 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1), the 120 day time period for appeal to the federal court will begin on January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information concerning the final permits may be obtained from VelRey Lozano, EPA Region 8, Wastewater Unit (8P-W-WW), 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, telephone 303-312-6128 or email at [email protected]

    The administrative record is available by appointment for review and copying, fee for copies may be required, at the EPA Region 8 offices during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Federal holidays excluded. The final general permits, the fact sheet, and additional information may be downloaded from the EPA Region 8 Web page at http://www2.epa.gov/region8/npdes-permits-document-download. Please allow one week after date of this publication for items to be uploaded to the Web page.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed issuance of the general permits was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2015, 80 FR 37255. The public comment period closed on July 30, 2015. A summary of comments received and Region 8's response to the comments are given in a separate document, “Response to Comments Received During the 2015 Public Notice of Draft NPDES General Permits for Wastewater Lagoon Systems Located in Indian country”.

    These permits authorize the discharge of wastewater in accordance with the terms and conditions described therein. The fact sheet for the permits is provide for downloading concurrently with the permits and provides detailed information on: The decisions used to set limitations; the specific geographic areas covered by the permits; information on monitoring schedules; inspection requirements, and other regulatory decisions or requirements.

    Issuance of the general permits covers discharges from wastewater lagoon systems located in Indian country in Region 8. The general permits are grouped geographically by state, with the permit coverage being for specified Indian reservations located within a state boundary [specific permit coverage areas below]; any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and any other areas which are Indian country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.

    Colorado: The COG587### permit covers the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Reservations, including those portions of the Reservation located in New Mexico and Utah.

    Montana: MTG589### This permit covers the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; the Crow Indian Reservation; the Flathead Reservation; the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; the Fort Peck Indian Reservation; the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation; and the Rocky Boy's Reservation.

    North Dakota: NDG589### This permit covers the Fort Berthold Reservation; the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation; the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation; and the Turtle Mountain Reservation.

    This permit includes that portion of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and associated Indian country located within the State of South Dakota. It does not include any land held in trust by the United States for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate or any other Indian country associated with that Tribe, which is covered under general permit SDG589###.

    South Dakota: SDG589### This permit covers the Cheyenne River Reservation; Crow Creek Reservation; the Flandreau Santee Sioux Indian Reservation; the Lower Brule Reservation; the Pine Ridge Reservation (including the entire Reservation, which is located in both South Dakota and Nebraska); the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation; and the Yankton Sioux Reservation.

    This permit includes any land in the State of North Dakota that is held in trust by the United States for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate or any other Indian country associated with that Tribe. It does not include the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation or any associated Indian country, which is covered under general permit NDG589###.

    Utah: UTG589### This permit covers the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah Reservation (Washakie); the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Reservation; the Skull Valley Indian Reservation; and Indian country lands within the Uintah & Ouray Reservation. It does not include any portions of the Navajo Nation or the Goshute Reservation.

    Wyoming: WYG589### This permit covers the Wind River Reservation.

    Coverage under the general permits is limited to lagoon systems treating primarily domestic wastewater and includes two categories of coverage; discharging lagoons, and lagoons expected to have no discharge. The effluent limitations for discharging lagoons are based on the Federal Secondary Treatment Regulation (40 CFR part 133) and best professional judgement. The fact sheet also addresses situations in which more stringent and/or additional effluent limitations are determined necessary to comply with applicable water quality standards. Lagoon systems under the no discharge category are required to have no discharge except in accordance with the bypass provisions of the permit. Self-monitoring requirements and routine inspection requirements are included in the permits.

    Where the Tribes have Clean Water Act § 401(a)(1) certification authority; Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Flathead Indian Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, and the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation; EPA has requested certification that the permits comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA and tribal water quality standards.

    Other Legal Requirements

    Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866): EPA has determined that the issuance of this general permit is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review prior to proposal.

    Paperwork Reduction Act: EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities in these proposed general permits under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 501, et seq. The information collection requirements of these permits have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water Act.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA): The RFA requires that the EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The permits proposed today, however, are not a “rule” subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and is therefore not subject to the RFA.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” defined to be the same as “rules” subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)) on tribal, state, local governments and the private sector. The permit proposed today, however, is not a rule and is therefore not subject to the requirements of the UMRA.

    Authority:

    Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

    Dated: December 3, 2015. Darcy O'Connor, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31916 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9024-5] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 12/07/2015 Through 12/11/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150350, Draft, NMFS, FL, Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper Amendment 39 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources in the Gulf of Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 02/01/2016, Contact: Roy E. Crabtree 727-824-5301. EIS No. 20150351, Final, USFWS, TX, Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 01/19/2016, Contact: Adam Zerrenner 512-490-0057. EIS No. 20150352, Final, USFS, MT, Montanore Project, Review Period Ends: 01/19/2016, Contact: Lynn Hagarty 406-283-7642. EIS No. 20150353, Draft, FRA, MD, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/05/2016, Contact: Michelle W. Fishburne 202-293-0398. EIS No. 20150354, Final, BR, CA, Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 01/19/2016, Contact: Rosemary Stefani 916-978-5045. EIS No. 20150355, Final, USN, OR, Military Readiness Activities at Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, OR, Review Period Ends: 01/19/2016, Contact: Amy Burt 360-396-0403. EIS No. 20150356, Final, APHIS, PRO, Carcass Management During a Mass Animal Health Emergency, Review Period Ends: 01/19/2016, Contact: Lori P. Miller 301-851-3512. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150357, Adoption, NOAA, OR, ADOPTION—Southern Flow Corridor Project, Contact: Patricia A. Montanio 301-427-8600.

    The U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is adopting the Federal Emergency Management Agency's FEIS #20150296, filed 10/22/2015 with EPA. NOAA was a cooperating agency for the above project, therefore recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31903 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 151-0048] Drug Testing Compliance Group, LLC; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dtcgroupconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Drug Testing Compliance Group—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0048” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dtcgroupconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Drug Testing Compliance Group—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0048” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Lanning (202-326-3361), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for December 14, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 13, 2016. Write “Drug Testing Compliance Group—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0048” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dtcgroupconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Drug Testing Compliance Group—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0048” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 13, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing consent order (“Consent Agreement”) from Drug Testing Compliance Group, LLC (“DTC Group”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that DTC Group violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by inviting a competitor to enter a customer allocation agreement.

    Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, DTC Group is required to cease and desist from communicating with its competitors about customers and prices. The Consent Agreement also prohibits DTC Group from entering into, participating in, inviting, or soliciting an agreement with any competitor to allocate customers, to divide markets, or to fix prices.

    The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the Consent Agreement again and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement or make final the accompanying Decision and Order (“Proposed Order”).

    The purpose of this Analysis to Aid Public Comment is to invite and facilitate public comment. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and the accompanying Proposed Order or in any way to modify their terms.

    I. The Complaint

    The allegations of the Complaint are summarized below:

    DTC Group markets and sells an array of services to commercial drivers, commercial trucking firms, and other persons that facilitate compliance with various regulations administered by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, including regulations relating to drug and alcohol testing, safety audits, and driver qualifications.

    DTC Group primarily utilizes telemarketing and the internet to market and sell its services. DTC Group competes with several firms throughout the United States offering similar services.

    DTC Group and Competitor A market and sell similar services in direct competition. Beginning in 2013 and continuing to date, DTC Group and Competitor A have competed for one another's customers by offering lower prices for the services they sell. In some instances, one firm can induce a customer, whose contract is terminable at will, to switch service providers by offering lower prices.

    On or about June 27, 2014, the president of DTC Group, David Crossett, contacted Competitor A to complain that Competitor A's sales personnel had induced a DTC Group customer to switch service providers. Mr. Crossett requested a meeting with Competitor A to discuss the matter.

    Mr. Crossett met with the principals of Competitor A on July 10, 2014. Mr. Crossett proposed that the firms agree not to solicit or compete for one another's customers. Specifically, Mr. Crossett proposed that DTC Group and Competitor A should reciprocally agree to refrain from selling or attempting to sell a service to a customer if the rival firm had previously arranged to sell the same service to the customer. Mr. Crossett referred to this arrangement as “First Call Wins,” and explained that such agreement would permit each company to sell its services to customers without fearing that its rival would later undercut it with a lower price offer.

    II. Analysis

    Mr. Crossett's communication to Competitor A is an attempt to arrange a customer allocation agreement between the two companies. The invitation, if accepted, would be a per se violation of the Sherman Act.2 The Commission has long held that invitations to collude violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, and this is unaltered by the Commission's recent Statement on Section 5. In that Statement, the Commission explained that unfair methods of competition under Section 5 “must cause, or be likely to cause, harm to competition or the competitive process, taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies and business justifications.” 3 Potential violations are evaluated under a “framework similar to the rule of reason.” 4 Competitive effects analysis under the rule of reason depends upon the nature of the conduct that is under review.5

    2United States v. Coop. Theatres of Ohio, Inc., 845 F.2d 1367, 1372 (6th Cir. 1988) (“[A] horizontal agreement between two competitors to refrain from seeking business from each other's existing accounts . . . is plainly a form of customer allocation and, hence, is the type of `naked restraint' which triggers application of the per se rule of illegality.”); United States v. Cadillac Overall Supply Co., 568 F.2d 1078 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 903 (1978).

    3 Fed. Trade Comm'n, Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Aug. 13, 2015) (Section 5 Unfair Methods of Competition Policy Statement), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/735201/150813section5enforcement.pdf. Commissioner Ohlhausen dissented from the issuance of the Section 5 Unfair Methods of Competition Policy Statement. See https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2015/08/dissenting-statement-commissioner-ohlhausen-ftc-act-section-5-policy.

    4 Section 5 Unfair Methods of Competition Policy Statement.

    5See, e.g., California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 781 (1999) (“What is required . . . is an enquiry meet for the case, looking to the circumstances, details, and logic of a restraint.”).

    An invitation to collude is “potentially harmful and . . . serves no legitimate business purpose.” 6 For this reason, the Commission treats such conduct as “inherently suspect” (that is, presumptively anticompetitive).7 This means that an invitation to collude can be condemned under Section 5 without a showing that the respondent possesses market power.8

    6In re Valassis Commc'ns, Inc., 141 F.T.C. 247, 283 (2006) (Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment); see also Address by FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, Section 5 Enforcement Principles, George Washington University Law School at 5 (Aug. 13, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/735411/150813section5speech.pdf.

    7See, e.g., In re North Carolina Bd. of Dental Examiners, 152 F.T.C. 640, 668 (2011) (noting that inherently suspect conduct is such that can be “reasonably characterized as `giv[ing] rise to an intuitively obviously inference of anticompetitive effect.' ”) (citation omitted).

    8See, e.g., In re Realcomp II, Ltd., 148 F.T.C. __, Docket No. 9320, 2009 FTC LEXIS 250, at *51 (Oct. 30, 2009) (Comm'n Op.) (explaining that if conduct is “inherently suspect” in nature, and there are no cognizable procompetitive justifications, the Commission can condemn it “without proof of market power or actual effects”).

    The Commission has long held that an invitation to collude violates Section 5 of the FTC Act even where there is no proof that the competitor accepted the invitation.9 First, unaccepted solicitations may facilitate coordination between competitors because they reveal information about the solicitor's intentions or preferences. Second, it can be difficult to discern whether a competitor has accepted a solicitation. Third, finding a violation may deter similar conduct that has no legitimate business purpose.10

    9See, e.g., In re Valassis Commc'ns, Inc., 141 F.T.C. 247 (2006); In re Stone Container, 125 F.T.C. 853 (1998); In re Precision Moulding, 122 F.T.C. 104 (1996). See also In re McWane, Inc., Docket No. 9351, Opinion of the Commission on Motions for Summary Decision at 20-21 (F.T.C. Aug. 9, 2012) (“an invitation to collude is `the quintessential example of the kind of conduct that should be . . . challenged as a violation of Section 5' ”) (citing the Statement of Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioners Kovacic and Rosch, In re U-Haul Int'l, Inc., 150 F.T.C. 1, 53 (2010)). This conclusion has been endorsed by leading antitrust scholars. See P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, VI ANTITRUST LAW ¶ 1419 (2003); Stephen Calkins, Counterpoint: The Legal Foundation of the Commission's Use of Section 5 to Challenge Invitations to Collude is Secure, Antitrust, Spring 2000, at 69. In a case brought under a state's version of Section 5, the First Circuit expressed support for the Commission's application of Section 5 to invitations to collude. See Liu v. Amerco, 677 F.3d 489 (1st Cir. 2012).

    10In re Valassis Commc'ns, Inc., 141 F.T.C. 247, 283 (2006) (Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment).

    III. The Proposed Consent Order

    The Proposed Order has the following substantive provisions:

    Section II, Paragraph A of the Proposed Order enjoins DTC Group from communicating with its competitors about rates or prices, with a proviso permitting public posting of rates.

    Section II, Paragraph B prohibits DTC Group from entering into, participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, inviting, offering, or soliciting an agreement with any competitor to divide markets, to allocate customers, or to fix prices.

    Section II, Paragraph C bars DTC Group from urging any competitor to raise, fix, or maintain its price or rate levels, or to limit or reduce service terms or levels.

    Sections III-VI of the Proposed Order impose reporting and compliance requirements on DTC Group.

    The Proposed Order will expire in 20 years.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31822 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-7039-N] Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), January 13, 2016 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the new meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM,1 Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) consumer education strategies. This meeting is open to the public.

    1 Health Insurance MarketplaceSM and MarketplaceSM are service marks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    Deadline for Meeting Registration, Presentations and Comments: Wednesday, December 30, 2015, 5 p.m., EST.

    Deadline for Requesting Special Accommodations: Wednesday, December 30, 2015, 5:00 p.m., e.s.t.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 425A, Conference Room, Washington, DC 20201.

    Presentations and Written Comments: Presentations and written comments should be submitted to: Abigail Huffman, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Division of Forum and Conference Development, Office of Communications, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mailstop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 or via email at [email protected].

    Registration: The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register at the Web site https://www.regonline.com/apoejan2016meeting or by contacting the DFO as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation or other special accommodations should contact the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abigail Huffman, Designated Federal Official, Office of Communications, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244, 410-786-0897, email [email protected]. Additional information about the APOE is available on the Internet at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/APOE.html. Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

    The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 2 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

    2 We note that the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education is also referred to as the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (65 FR 4617). The name was updated in the Second Amended Charter approved on July 24, 2000.

    The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

    In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

    The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through competitive marketplaces called Affordable Insurance Exchanges, or “Exchanges” (we also call an Exchange a Health Insurance MarketplaceSM or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through an Exchange. The APOE (the Panel) allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

    The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

    On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 21, 2015, and will terminate on January 21, 2017 unless renewed by appropriate action.

    Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

    • Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through a Health Insurance MarketplaceSM.

    • Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

    • Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.

    • Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

    • Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

    • Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

    The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, Matz, Blancato & Associates; Dale Blasier, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Arkansas Children's Hospital; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Josephine DeLeon, Director, Anti-Poverty Initiatives, Catholic Charities of California; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Jennifer Gross, Manager of Political Field Operations, Planned Parenthood of Montana; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Miriam Mobley-Smith, Dean, Chicago State University, College of Pharmacy; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamila Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Brendan Riley, Outreach and Enrollment Coordinator, NC Community Health Center Association; Jeanne Ryer, Director, New Hampshire Citizens Health Initiative, University of New Hampshire; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the January 13, 2016 meeting will include the following:

    • Welcome and listening session with CMS leadership • Recap of the previous (October 7, 2015) meeting • Affordable Care Act initiatives • An opportunity for public comment • Meeting summary, review of recommendations, and next steps

    Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    Authority:

    Sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a) and sec. 10(a) of Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).

    Dated: December 10, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31861 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-855S, CMS-10142 and CMS-R-262] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by January 19, 2016:

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:

    OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public 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 publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Enrollment Application—Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Suppliers; Use: The primary function of the CMS 855S Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) supplier enrollment application is to gather information from a supplier that tells us who it is, whether it meets certain qualifications to be a health care supplier, where it renders its services or supplies, the identity of the owners of the enrolling entity, and information necessary to establish correct claims payment.

    The goal of this revision of the CMS-855S is to simplify and clarify the current data collection and to remove obsolete and/or redundant questions. Grammar and spelling errors were corrected. Limited informational text has been added within the application form and instructions in conjunction with links to Web sites when detail is needed by the supplier. To clarify current data collection differentiations and to be in sync with accreditation coding, section 3D (“Products and Services Furnished by This Supplier”) has been updated. This revision does not offer any new material data collection. CMS received one comment in response to the 60-day notice. Form Number: CMS-855S (OMB Control Number: 0938-1056); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector (, Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 31,915; Total Annual Responses: 31,915; Total Annual Hours: 36,842. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kimberly McPhillips at 410-786-5374.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Bid Pricing Tool (BPT) for Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans and Prescription Drug Plans (PDP); Use: We require that Medicare Advantage organizations and Prescription Drug Plans complete the BPT as part of the annual bidding process. During this process, organizations prepare their proposed actuarial bid pricing for the upcoming contract year and submit them to us for review and approval. The purpose of the BPT is to collect the actuarial pricing information for each plan. The BPT calculates the plan's bid, enrollee premiums, and payment rates. We publish beneficiary premium information using a variety of formats (www.medicare.gov, the Medicare & You handbook, Summary of Benefits marketing information) for the purpose of beneficiary education and enrollment. The package has been revised subsequent to the publication of the 60-day Federal Register notice (September 24, 2015; 80 FR 57619). Form Number: CMS-10142 (OMB control number 0938-0944); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 555; Total Annual Responses: 4,995; Total Annual Hours: 149,850. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Rachel Shevland at 410-786-3026).

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Contract Year 2017 Plan Benefit Package (PBP) Software and Formulary Submission; Use: We require that Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Plan organizations submit a completed PBP and formulary as part of the annual bidding process. During this process, organizations prepare their proposed plan benefit packages for the upcoming contract year and submit them to us for review and approval. We publish beneficiary education information using a variety of formats. The specific education initiatives that utilize PBP and formulary data include web application tools on www.medicare.gov and the plan benefit insert in the Medicare & You handbook. In addition, organizations utilize the PBP data to generate their Summary of Benefits marketing information. The package has been revised subsequent to the publication of the 60-day Federal Register notice (September 24, 2015; 80 FR 57619). Form Number: CMS-R-262 (OMB control number 0938-0763); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (business or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 552; Total Annual Responses: 5,448; Total Annual Hours: 52,902. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kristy Holtje at 410-786-2209).

    Dated: December 15, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31887 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Disaster Information Collection Form.

    OMB No.: 0970—NEW.

    Description: This is a request by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) for a generic clearance for the Disaster Information Collection Form. An approval for a generic clearance is being requested because each of the thirteen program offices within ACF has a slightly different need for information about program impact information collection during a disaster.

    ACF oversees more than 60 programs that affect the normal day to day operations of families, children, individuals and communities in the United States. Many of these programs encourage grantees or state administrators to develop emergency preparedness plans, but do not have statutory authority to require these plans be in place. ACF facilitates the inclusion of emergency preparedness planning and training efforts for ACF programs.

    Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8) provides federal guidance and planning procedures under established phases—protection, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The Disaster Information Collection Forms addressed in this clearance process provide assessment of ACF programs in disaster response, and recovery.

    ACF/Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR) has a requirement under PPD-8, the National Response Framework, and the National Disaster Recovery Framework to report disaster impacts to ACF-supported human services programs to the HHS Secretary's Operation Center (SOC) and interagency partners. ACF/OHSEPR works in partnership with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to report assessments of disaster impacted ACF programs and the status of continuity of services and recovery.

    Respondents: State administrators, and/or ACF grantees.

    Annual Burden Estimates: The burden cap for the Disaster Information Collection Form is estimated based on a single disaster per year. The estimate is for approximately 10 state administrators, or grantees to go through all of the applicable questions with the Regional and Central Office staff. Some ACF programs have more questions and may have more respondents.

    Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Burden hours per response Total burden hours
    Disaster Information Collection Form 10 15 0.08 hours (5 minutes) 1.25 hours (75 minutes).

    An estimate of the number of disasters that would warrant data collection is difficult to calculate due to the unpredictable nature of disasters. For example, in 2012, there were 95 disasters nationwide but OHSEPR did not collect data on all of them because they had minimal effects on ACF programs.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31774 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.

    Name of Committee: Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on January 22, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    Contact Person: Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application 206488, eteplirsen injection for intravenous infusion, sponsored by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in patients who have a confirmed mutation of the DMD gene that is amenable to exon 51 skipping.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before January 7, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 12:40 p.m. and 2:40 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before December 29, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by December 30, 2015.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Moon Hee V. Choi at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 11, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31825 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0474] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XTANDI AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for XTANDI 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.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by February 16, 2016. 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 by June 15, 2016. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • 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”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    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.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0474 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XTANDI.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    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 XTANDI (enzalutamide). XTANDI is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have previously received docetaxel. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for XTANDI (U.S. Patent No. 8,183,274) from The Regents of the University of California, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 16, 2013, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of XTANDI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for XTANDI is 1,892 days. Of this time, 1,790 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 102 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: June 29, 2007. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on June 29, 2007.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: May 22, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for XTANDI (NDA 203-415) was initially submitted on May 22, 2012.

    3. The date the application was approved: August 31, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203-415 was approved on August 31, 2012.

    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 101 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    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 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: December 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31824 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of Intent To Establish the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Committee Membership AGENCY:

    Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the intent to establish a Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee). It is planned for the Committee to be established in calendar year 2016. This notice also serves to announce that an invitation is being extended for nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Committee.

    DATES:

    Nominations for membership on the Committee must be submitted by 6:00 p.m. ET on Friday, February 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be submitted by email to [email protected] This address can be accessed online at the following address: www.health.gov/paguidelines. Nominations may also be sent to the following address: Richard D. Olson, M.D., M.P.H., Designated Program Official, 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee; HHS/OASH/ODPHP; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL-100; Rockville, MD 20852; Telephone: (240) 453-8280.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Designated Program Official, 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, Richard D. Olson and/or Alternate Designated Program Official, Katrina L. Piercy, Ph.D., R.D., HHS/OASH/ODPHP; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL-100; Rockville, MD 20852; Telephone: (240) 453-8280. Additional information is available at www.health.gov/paguidelines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: The inaugural Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAG), issued in 2008, represents the first major federal review of the benefits of physical activity. The PAG provides science-based advice on how physical activity can help promote health and reduce the risk of chronic disease. The PAG serves as the benchmark and primary, authoritative voice of the federal government for providing science-based guidance on physical activity, fitness, and health in the United States. Five years after the first edition of the PAG was released, ODPHP, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (PCFSN) led development of the PAG Midcourse Report: Strategies to Increase Physical Activity Among Youth. The 2nd edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines will build upon the 1st edition and provide a foundation for federal recommendations and education for physical activity programs for Americans, including those at risk for chronic disease.

    The Committee will be established as a discretionary federal advisory committee and governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.). The work of the Committee will be solely advisory in nature and time-limited. Formation of the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. The Committee will examine the current PAG, take into consideration new scientific evidence and current resource documents, and then develop a scientific advisory report to be submitted to the Secretary of HHS that outlines its science-based recommendations and rationale. The scientific report will be used by the federal government to develop the 2nd edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. The Committee's duties do not include developing the policy, a draft of the policy, or determining how future policy might be implemented by the federal government. For those interested in reviewing the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, the 2008 Advisory Committee Scientific Report, or the PAG Midcourse Report, they are available at www.health.gov/paguidelines.

    The Committee is expected to begin meeting in summer of 2016. The Committee is expected to meet approximately five times during the course of its operation. Pursuant to FACA, all meetings of the full Committee will be open to the public.

    Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee will be invited to serve as members until the charter expires or the Committee accomplishes its mission. In keeping with FACA, the charter will expire two years from the date it is established. The Committee will operate until its report is delivered to the Secretary or the charter expires, whichever comes first. There will be no stipend authorized to be paid to the members for performance of their official duties. However, Committee members will be authorized to receive per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred for attending public meetings.

    Structure: It is proposed that the Committee will consist of 11-17 members; one or two members will be selected to serve as the Chair, Vice Chair, and/or Co-Chairs. To be eligible for consideration of appointment to the Committee, individuals should be knowledgeable of current scientific research in human physical activity and be respected and published experts in their fields. They should be familiar with the purpose, communication, and application of federal physical activity guidelines and have demonstrated interest in the public's health and well-being through their research and/or educational endeavors. Expertise is sought in specific specialty areas related to physical activity and health promotion or disease prevention, including but not limited to: Health promotion and chronic disease prevention; bone, joint, and muscle health and performance; obesity and weight management; physical activity and risk of musculoskeletal injury; physical activity and cognition; physical activity within specific settings, such as preschool/childcare, schools (e.g., activity breaks, physical education), or the community/built environment; physical activity dose-response; sedentary behavior; behavior change; systematic reviews; and special populations including children, older adults, individuals with disabilities, or women who are pregnant.

    Nominations: HHS will consider nominations, including self-nominations, for Committee membership of individuals qualified to carry out the above-mentioned tasks. The following information should be included in the package of material submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) The name, address, daytime telephone number, and email address of the nominator and the individual being nominated; (2) a letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes which qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), and a statement from the nominee that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee; and (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae (CV) no more than 10 pages in length. Inclusion of the following is requested in the CV: (1) Current and/or past grant awards; (2) publications showing both breadth and experience in areas of specialization; (3) paid and non-paid board and advisory appointments; and (4) education and occupational history.

    All nominations must include the required information. Incomplete nominations will not be processed for consideration. Federal employees should not be nominated for consideration of appointment to this Committee.

    Equal opportunity practices regarding membership appointments to the Committee will be aligned with HHS policies. When possible, every effort will be made to ensure that the Committee is a diverse group of individuals with representation from various geographic locations, racial and ethnic minorities, all genders, and persons with disabilities. Individuals will be appointed to serve as members of the Committee to represent balanced viewpoints of the scientific evidence, not to represent the viewpoints of any specific group.

    Members of the Committee will be classified as special government employees (SGEs) during their term of appointment to the Committee, and as such are subject to the ethical standards of conduct for federal employees. Upon entering the position and annually throughout the term of appointment, members of the Committee will be required to complete and submit a report of their financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants and/or contracts. The purpose of this report is to determine if the individual has any interest and/or activities in the private sector that may conflict with performance of their official duties as a member of the Committee.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31837 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, 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.

    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.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.

    Date: January 26-27, 2016.

    Open: January 26, 2016, 1:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

    Agenda: Discussion of Program Policies and Issues.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, Building 35A, Convent Drive, Room 620/630, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: January 27, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, Building 35A, Convent Drive, Room 620/630, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Ann R. Knebel, DNSC, RN, FAAN, Deputy Director, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 5B05, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8230, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    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.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nih.gov/ninr/aadvisory.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 14, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31768 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods Communities of Practice Webinar on Fundamentals of Using Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models and Read-across Techniques in Predictive Toxicology; Notice of Public Webinar; Registration Information SUMMARY:

    The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) announces a public webinar “Fundamentals of Using Quantitative Structure—Activity Relationship Models and Read-Across Techniques in Predictive Toxicology.” The webinar is organized on behalf of ICCVAM by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) and hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT). Interested persons may participate via Adobe® ConnectTM. Time is allotted for questions from the audience.

    DATES:

    Webinar: January 26, 2016, 1 p.m. to approximately 2:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    Registration for Webinar: December 18, 2015 until January 26, 2016 at 2:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Webinar Web page: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/commprac-2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, NICEATM; email: [email protected]; telephone: (919) 316-4729.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: ICCVAM promotes the development and validation of toxicity testing methods that protect human health and the environment while replacing, reducing, or refining animal use. ICCVAM also provides guidance to test method developers and facilitates collaborations that promote the development of new test methods. To address these goals, ICCVAM is organizing a webinar on “Fundamentals of Using Quantitative Structure—Activity Relationship Models and Read-across Techniques in Predictive Toxicology.”

    Many commercial and environmental chemicals lack toxicity data necessary for users and risk assessors to make informed decisions about their potential health effects. Computational methods use data about structure, properties, and toxicity from tested chemicals to make predictions about the characteristics of untested chemicals. These include quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, which predict the activities of chemicals with unknown properties by relating them to properties of known chemicals, and read-across, which uses toxicity data from a known (source) chemical to predict toxicity for another (target) chemical, usually but not always on the basis of structural similarity. Predictions made using these methods about toxicity of untested chemicals can help set priorities for future in vitro or in vivo testing, ensuring that the most important hazards are characterized first and that testing resources are used efficiently.

    The ICCVAM webinar will feature presentations by two experts in the development and application of QSAR models and read-across techniques. Alex Tropsha, Ph.D., associate dean for pharmacoinformatics and data science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, will discuss fundamentals of QSAR models. Louis (Gino) Scarano, Ph.D., of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, will describe read-across techniques and discuss the regulatory applications of QSAR models and read-across techniques.

    Webinar and Registration: This webinar is open to the public with time scheduled for questions by attendees following each presentation. Registration for the webinar is required and is open from December 18, 2015, through 2:30 p.m. on January 26, 2016. A link to registration is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/commprac-2016. Registrants will receive instructions on how to access and participate in the webinar in the email confirming their registration.

    The preliminary agenda is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/commprac-2016. Interested individuals are encouraged to visit this Web page to stay abreast of the most current webinar information.

    Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Ms. LaCresha Styles at phone: (919) 541-3282 or email: [email protected]. TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

    Background Information on ICCVAM and NICEATM: ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) establishes ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and provides the authority for ICCVAM's involvement in activities relevant to the development of new and revised toxicological tests.

    ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative test methods and testing strategies with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of test methods that both more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and replace, reduce, or refine (enhance animal well-being and lessen or avoid pain and distress) animal use. ICCVAM acts to ensure that new and revised test methods are validated to meet the needs of federal agencies, to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of federal agency test method review, and to optimize utilization of scientific expertise outside the federal government. Additional information about ICCVAM can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam.

    NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM activities, and conducts analyses and evaluations and coordinates independent validation studies on novel and high-priority alternative testing approaches. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods and strategies applicable to the needs of U.S. federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies for validation studies and technical evaluations. Additional information about NICEATM can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31832 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; AGING STUDY.

    Date: January 20, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Carmen Moten, Ph.D., M.P.H., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7703, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 11, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31771 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of a Small Molecule Farnesoid X Receptor Inhibitor AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in the following U.S. Patents and Patent Applications to Heliome Biotech, Inc. (“Heliome”) located in New York, NY, USA.

    Intellectual Property:

    1. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/861,109, filed August 1, 2013 “Inhibitors of the Farnesoid X Receptor and Use Thereof in the Prevention of Weight Gain” [HHS Reference No. E-508-2013/0-US-01]; 2. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 62/004,436, filed May 29, 2014, entitled “Methods of Treating or Preventing Obesity, Insulin Resistance and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease” [HHS Reference No. E-508-2013/1-US-01]; and 3. PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/49460 filed August 1, 2014 “Inhibitors of the Farnesoid X Receptor and Uses in Medicine” [HHS Reference No. E-508-2013/2-PCT-01].

    The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the use of the Licensed Patent Rights to make or have made, use and sell a small molecule farnesoid X receptor inhibitor for all metabolic diseases.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NCI Technology Transfer Center on or before January 4, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Thomas Clouse, J.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, 9609 Medical Center Drive, RM 1E530 MSC 9702, Bethesda, MD 20892-9702 (for business mail), Rockville, MD 20850-9702 Telephone: (240)-276-5530; Facsimile: (240)-276-5504 Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Remodeling the gut microbiota using specific compounds can affect high fat diet-induced obesity through signal transduction mediated by the nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR). FXR is inhibited due to the altered gut microbiota as a result of lack of metabolism (bile salt hydrolase activity) of a potent FXR antagonist tauro-β-muracholic acid (TβMCA) that is produced in the liver and secreted to the intestine. The technology identifies a class of compounds that specifically decrease levels of Lactobacillus-associated bile salt hydrolase activity resulting in accumulation of intestinal TβMCA which is now identified as an antagonist of FXR. The technology has the potential of being developed into a therapeutic for various metabolic disorders associated with inhibition of the farnesoid X receptor pathway, including Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), Type 2 Diabetes, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NCI receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

    Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Richard U. Rodriguez, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31831 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with a short public comment period at the end. Attendance is limited by the 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. The open session will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (http://videocast.nih.gov/).

    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.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.

    Date: January 28-29, 2016.

    Closed: January 28, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Rooms E1 & E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: January 29, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to Adjournment.

    Agenda: For the discussion of program policies and issues, opening remarks, report of the Director, NIGMS, and other business of the Council.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Rooms E1 & E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Ann A. Hagan, Ph.D., Associate Director for Extramural Activities, NIGMS, NIH, DHHS, 45 Center Drive, Room 2AN24B, MSC 6200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4499, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxis, 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. Information is also available on the Institute's home page (http://www.nigms.nih.gov/About/Council/) where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 11, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31772 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Application (P01).

    Date: January 12, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3G61, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dharmendar Rathore, Ph.D., Senior Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G30, National Institues of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Drive, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, 240-669-5058, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 14, 2015. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31770 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Radiation Biology.

    Date: January 5, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1211, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 14, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31767 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Workshop on Addressing Challenges in the Assessment of Botanical Dietary Supplement Safety; Notice of Public Meeting; Registration Information SUMMARY:

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) announces the public workshop, “Addressing Challenges in the Assessment of Botanical Dietary Supplement Safety.” Presenters from academia, government, and industry will introduce the challenges in assessing botanical dietary supplement safety and present various approaches that could facilitate progress in three focus areas. The workshop will consist of plenary presentations and panel discussions. Information about the meeting and registration is available at (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/workshop_botanicals).

    DATES:

    Meeting: April 26-27, 2016, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    Meeting Registration: Registration is open through April 12, 2016; registration will close earlier if space capacity is reached. Registration to view the workshop via webcast is required.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: Lister Hill Auditorium, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, NIH Building 38A, Bethesda, MD 20894

    Meeting Web page: The preliminary agenda and registration are at (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/workshop_botanicals).

    Webcast: The meeting will be webcast; the URL will be provided to those who register to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Cynthia Rider, NTP Toxicologist, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD K2-12, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Telephone: (919) 541-7638, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The safety of botanical dietary supplements, hereafter referred to as botanicals, is an important public health issue. According to the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, 17.7 percent of Americans reported having used nonvitamin, nonmineral dietary supplements (including botanicals) in the past 12 months (Clarke et al., 2015). Botanicals pose several unique challenges to efficacy and safety evaluation because of their inherent complexity and potential for wide variability in nominally related products. The interrelated challenges associated with the evaluation of botanicals include: (1) Developing methods and criteria for assessing phytoequivalence (i.e., similarity in chemical composition and biological activity) of botanicals, (2) identifying the active constituent(s) or patterns of biological response of botanicals, and (3) assessing absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination (ADME) of botanicals. This workshop will engage experts from multiple disciplines to focus on practical approaches for addressing these challenges.

    Multiple factors contribute to the variability in botanicals including complex and inconsistent source material, manufacturing processes, formulation, and storage. Botanicals in commerce often display a wide range in the concentration of known constituents. Robust procedures for comparing constituent profiles across multiple botanicals are needed to determine how broadly safety or efficacy evaluations with a specific product can be applied to related products. Topics for discussion at the workshop include definition of important chemical and biological activity features, statistical methods for comparing across complex mixtures, and how to define “similarity” across botanicals (i.e., how similar do botanicals have to be in order to apply safety data from a reference botanical to nominally-related botanicals).

    Botanicals are often perceived to have significant health benefits with low risk of harm. Since botanicals are complex natural products, the particular constituent(s) responsible for biological activity, as related to efficacy or toxicity, is often unknown. Participants at the workshop will discuss the relative merits of dedicating scientific attention to identifying the active constituent(s) in botanicals and identifying biological signatures that are predictive of adverse events (biomarkers of effect). Furthermore, presentations will address promising approaches (e.g., high throughput screening, computational tools) and accompanying challenges for using these approaches to advance our understanding of the risks associated with botanical use.

    Understanding the ADME of botanicals is critical to evaluating their safety. However, evaluating ADME in humans and animal models is complicated in the case of botanicals by the large number of constituents, the wide range of concentrations, potential interactions (botanical-botanical and botanical-drug interactions), as well as interindividual and animal-to-human differences in pharmacokinetics. The workshop will include discussion of knowledge gaps and available options for assessing ADME of botanicals to inform future safety evaluations.

    Meeting and Registration

    This meeting is open to the public, free of charge, with attendance limited only by the space available. Individuals who plan to attend in person should register at (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/workshop_botanicals) by April 12, 2016, to facilitate meeting planning. Registration will close earlier if space capacity is reached. Registration is required to view the Webcast; the URL for the Webcast will be provided in the email confirming registration. A preliminary agenda and additional information are available at (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/workshop_botanicals). Interested individuals are encouraged to access the Web site to stay abreast of the most current information regarding the workshop.

    Visitor and security information for those attending in person is available at https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/visitor-information/campus-access-security. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Dr. Rider at telephone: (919) 541-7638 or email: [email protected] TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

    Background Information on the NTP

    NTP is an interagency program established in 1978 (43 FR 53060) to strengthen the Department of Health and Human Services' activities in toxicology research and testing, and develop and validate new and better testing methods. Other activities of the program focus on strengthening the science base in toxicology and providing information about potentially toxic chemicals to health regulatory and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public. NTP is located administratively at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Information about NTP and NIEHS is found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov and http://www.niehs.nih.gov, respectively.

    Reference

    Clarke, T.C. et al. Trends in the use of complementary health approaches among adults: United States, 2002-2012, in National health statistics reports. 2015. National Center for Health Statistics: Hyattsville, MD.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31833 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings

    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.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders A.

    Date: February 22-23, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Best Western Tuscan Inn, 425 North Point Street, San Francisco, CA 94133.

    Contact Person: Natalia Strunnikova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-402-0288, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders C.

    Date: February 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    Contact Person: William C. Benzing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-0660, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders B.

    Date: February 25, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130,

    Contact Person: Birgit Neuhuber, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review Group; NST-1 Subcommittee.

    Date: March 7-8, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Arlington, 1325 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209.

    Contact Person: William C. Benzing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-0660, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review Group; NST-2 Subcommittee.

    Date: March 14-15, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Pier 2620 Hotel, 2620 Jones Street, San Francisco, CA 94133.

    Contact Person: Elizabeth A Webber, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-1917, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 14, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31769 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-1050] Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Diesel Outboard Engine Development AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Mercury Marine (Mercury) to evaluate and test the advantages, disadvantages, required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues associated with diesel outboard engine technology. A test schedule has been proposed in which Mercury will provide and install two of their diesel outboard engines onto a selected Coast Guard boat platform; the Coast Guard Research and Development Center (R&D Center) will outfit the platform with the necessary instrumentation to monitor power, speed, and fuel consumption; and a Coast Guard field unit will operate the boat for performance testing over a six-month period to collect information on reliability, maintenance requirements, and availability data. While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with Mercury, the agency is soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants to propose similar CRADAs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or before January 19, 2016.

    Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) on or before January 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov following Web site instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact LT Keely Higbie, Project Official, Surface Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone 860-271-2815, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan to respond to comments in the Federal Register, we will respond directly to commenters and may modify our proposal in light of comments.

    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-1050 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008). We also accept anonymous comments.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).1 A CRADA promotes the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.

    1 The statute confers this authority on the head of each Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.

    Under the proposed CRADA, the R&D Center will collaborate with one non-Federal participant. Together, the R&D Center and the non-Federal participant will collect information/data for performance, reliability, maintenance requirements, and other data on diesel outboard engines. After an initial performance test, the Coast Guard plans to operate to test and evaluate the designated platform outfitted with the diesel outboard engine technology for a period of six months.

    We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:

    (1) Work with non-Federal participant to develop the test plan to be executed under the CRADA;

    (2) Provide the test platform, test platform support, facilities, and seek all required approvals for testing under the CRADA;

    (3) Prepare the test platform for diesel outboard engine install and operations;

    (4) Provide fuel and test platform operators for the performance and reliability, maintenance, and availability testing;

    (5) Collect and analyze data in accordance with the CRADA test plan; and

    (6) Work with non-Federal participant to develop a Final Report, which will document the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA work.

    We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:

    (1) Work with R&D Center to develop the test plan to be executed under the CRADA;

    (2) Provide the technical data package for all equipments, including dimensions, weight, power requirements, and other technical considerations for the additional components to be utilized under this CRADA;

    (3) Provide for shipment, delivery, and install of diesel outboard engines required for testing under this CRADA;

    (4) Provide technical oversight, technical engine, and operator training on the engines provided for testing under this CRADA; and

    (5) Provide/pay for travel and other associated personnel costs and other required expenses.

    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:

    (1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and

    (2) How well they address the following criteria:

    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described; and

    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.

    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering Mercury for participation in this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that Mercury has demonstrated its technical ability as the developer and manufacturer of diesel outboard engines. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.

    This is a technology assessment effort. The goal for the Coast Guard of this CRADA is to better understand the advantages, disadvantages, required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues associated with diesel outboard engines. Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S. This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: December 2, 2015. Dennis C. Evans, USCG, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31909 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0054] Agency Information Collection Activities: Exportation of Used Self-Propelled Vehicles AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Exportation of Used Self-Propelled Vehicles. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before February 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Exportation of Used-Propelled Vehicles

    OMB Number: 1651-0054

    Abstract: CBP regulations require an individual attempting to export a used self-propelled vehicle to furnish documentation to CBP, at the port of export, the vehicle and documentation describing the vehicle, which includes the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) or, if the vehicle does not have a VIN, the product identification number. Exportation of a vehicle will be permitted only upon compliance with these requirements. This requirement does not apply to vehicles that were entered into the United States under an in-bond procedure, a carnet or temporary importation bond. The required documentation includes, but is not limited to, a Certificate of Title or a Salvage Title, the VIN, a Manufacture's Statement of Origin, etc. CBP will accept originals or certified copies of Certificate of Title. The purpose of this information is to help ensure that stolen vehicles or vehicles associated with other criminal activity are not exported.

    Collection of this information is authorized by 19 U.S.C.1627a which provides CBP with authority to impose export reporting requirements on all used self-propelled vehicles and by title IV, section 401 of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, 19 U.S.C. 1646(c) which requires all persons or entities exporting a used self-propelled vehicle to provide to the CBP, at least 72 hours prior to export, the VIN and proof of ownership of each automobile. This information collection is provided for by19 CFR part 192. Further guidance regarding these requirements is provided at: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/basic_trade/export_docs/motor_vehicle.xml.

    Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Individuals and Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 750,000.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 750,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 125,000.

    Dated: December 14, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31912 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0019; OMB No. 1660-0108] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System (NEFRLS) AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2015 at 80 FR 60397 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received one comment which included the following statements regarding NEFRLS:

    1. “Shelters are not jails, the evacuees come and go after arriving, often without the knowledge of the shelter managers. Therefore using the Safe and Well program is but a small way of contacting evacuees.”

    2. “Some will intentionally hide their identity for a myriad of reasons. (abusive spouse, warrants, debts, don't want the government to know where they are, no legal citizens).”

    3. “There is no single collection point for several states to share data of missing persons after a catastrophic event that covers several states.”

    4. “In Texas and other larger western states the travel times are considerable, so would like to have vehicles able to have reports of who is on board said vehicles.”

    5. “Integration with other local (state level) software solutions via API such as WebEOC is a must.”

    6. “One system at the federal level—this should replace NSS or integrate into it (single sign on).”

    FEMA evaluated the comment received regarding the NEFRLS. As mandated by Congress, NEFRLS is intended to be a system that survivors and people searching for them can use voluntarily on an individual basis. It is not intended to be a comprehensive data collection tool for responders and/or governments nor is it intended to be inclusive of all disaster survivors but only those who voluntarily choose to register. NEFRLS is not an evacuation tracking tool that can be used to create manifests. FEMA has developed the National Mass Evacuation Tracking System (NMETS) that is available to States at no charge that can perform this function. Information about NMETS can be found at the following link, http://www.fema.gov/individual-assistance-national-mass-evacuation-tracking-system. FEMA routinely explores options to increase interoperability and data sharing where applicable. FEMA always appreciates feedback from members of the emergency management community.

    The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

    Collection of Information

    Title: National Emergency Family and Registry System (NEFRLS).

    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0108.

    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 528-2.

    Abstract: NEFRLS is a Web-based database enabling FEMA to provide a nationally available and recognized database allowing adults (including medical patients) that have been displaced by a Presidentially declared major disaster or emergency to voluntarily register via the Internet or a toll-free number. This database allows designated individuals to search for displaced friends, family, and household members. Congress mandated that FEMA establish NEFRLS in the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, (PKEMRA) section 689c.

    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government, Federal Government, and Individuals or Households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,640.

    Estimated Cost: $241,634. There are no recordkeeping, capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

    Richard W. Mattison, Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31870 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0052] Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) is providing notice to the public and chemical facilities regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) that it is commencing implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. CFATS requires regulated chemical facilities to implement security measures designed to ensure that certain individuals with or seeking access to the restricted areas or critical assets at those chemical facilities are screened for terrorist ties. The CFATS Personnel Surety Program enables regulated chemical facilities to meet this requirement.

    DATES:

    This notice is effective as of the date of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Questions about this notice may be directed by mail to the DHS/NPPD/IP/Infrastructure Security Compliance Division CFATS Program Manager at the Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610. Questions, which include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),1 Sensitive Security Information (SSI),2 or Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII),3 should be properly safeguarded.

    1 For more information about CVI see 6 CFR 27.400 and the CVI Procedural Manual at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_cvi_proceduresmanual.pdf.

    2 For more information about SSI see 49 CFR part 1520 and the SSI Program Web page at www.tsa.gov.

    3 For more information about PCII see 6 CFR part 29 and the PCII Program Web page at http://www.dhs.gov/protected-critical-infrastructure-information-pcii-program.

    Table of Contents I. Notice of Implementation 3 II. Statutory and Regulatory History of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program 4 III. Contents and Requirements of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program 7 A. Who Must be Checked for Terrorist Ties? 7 B. Checking for Terrorist Ties During an Emergency or Exigent Situation 8 C. High-Risk Chemical Facilities have Flexibility when Implementing the CFATS Personnel Surety Program 8 D. Options Available to High-Risk Chemical Facilities to Comply with RBPS 12(iv) 9 E. High-Risk Chemical Facilities may Use More Than One Option 17 F. High-Risk Chemical Facilities may Propose Additional Options 17 G. Security Considerations for High-risk Chemical Facilities to Weigh in Selecting Options 18 H. When the Check for Terrorist Ties Must be Completed 20 IV. Additional Details about Option 1 and Option 2 (Which Involve the Submission of Information to the Department) 21 A. Submission of a New Affected Individual's Information under Option 1 or Option 2 21 B. Updates & Corrections to Information about Affected Individuals under Option 1 or Option 2 22 C. Notification that an Affected Individual No Longer Has Access under Option 1 or Option 2 23 D. What/Who is the Source of the Information under Option 1 and Option 2 23 V. CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities 24 VI. Privacy Considerations 25 A. Privacy Act Requirements To Enable Option 1 and Option 2 26 B. Redress 27 C. Additional Privacy Considerations Related to Option 1 And Option 2 27 D. Additional Privacy Considerations for Option 3 and Option 4: 28 VII. Information a High-Risk Chemical Facility may Wish to Consider Including in its SSP 29 I. Notice of Implementation

    The Department is publishing this notice to inform Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities regulated under CFATS of the implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.4 High-risk chemical facilities will be individually notified as to when the Department will expect each high-risk chemical facility to begin implementing risk based performance standard (RBPS) 12(iv) in accordance with its Site Security Plan (SSP).5

    4 The Department intends to expand the scope of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to include Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities after implementing the CFATS Personnel Surety Program at Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities. Any expansion to include Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities will require updates to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Information Collection Request. The Department will publish another notice to inform Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities of program expansion after making necessary updates to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Information Collection Request.

    5 Throughout this notice any reference to SSPs also refers to Alternative Security Programs submitted by high-risk chemical facilities as described in 6 CFR 27.235.

    II. Statutory and Regulatory History of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program

    Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (2006) (“Section 550”), provided the Department with the authority to identify and regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities using a risk-based approach. On April 9, 2007, the Department issued the CFATS Interim Final Rule (IFR) implementing this statutory mandate. See 72 FR 17688.

    Section 550 required that the Department establish risk-based performance standards for high-risk chemical facilities, and through the CFATS regulations the Department promulgated 18 RBPSs, including RBPS 12—Personnel Surety. Under RBPS 12, high-risk chemical facilities regulated under CFATS are required to account for the conduct of certain types of background checks in their Site Security Plans. Specifically, RBPS 12 requires high-risk chemical facilities to:

    Perform appropriate background checks on and ensure appropriate credentials for facility personnel, and as appropriate, for unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical assets, including, (i) Measures designed to verify and validate identity; (ii) Measures designed to check criminal history; (iii) Measures designed to verify and validate legal authorization to work; and (iv) Measures designed to identify people with terrorist ties[.]

    6 CFR 27.230(a)(12).

    The first three aspects of RBPS 12 (checks for identity, criminal history, and legal authorization to work) have already been implemented, and high-risk chemical facilities have addressed these aspects of RBPS 12 in their Site Security Plans. This notice announces to the public and chemical facilities that it is commencing implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, which requires Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities to implement security measures designed, to ensure that certain individuals with or seeking access to the restricted areas or critical assets at those chemical facilities are screened for terrorist ties.

    Identifying affected individuals who have terrorist ties is an inherently governmental function and requires the use of information held in government-maintained databases that are unavailable to high-risk chemical facilities. See 72 FR 17688, 17709 (April 9, 2007). Thus, under RBPS 12(iv), the Department and high-risk chemical facilities must work together to satisfy the “terrorist ties” aspect of the Personnel Surety performance standard. To implement the provisions of RBPS 12(iv), and in accordance with the Homeland Security Act as amended by the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014, Public Law 113-254,6 the following options will be available to enable high-risk chemical facilities to facilitate terrorist-ties vetting of affected individuals.

    6 Section 2 of Public Law 113-254 adds a new Title XXI to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Title XXI contains new sections numbered 2101 through 2109. Citations to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 throughout this document reference those sections of Title XXI. In addition to being found in amended versions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, those sections of Title XXI can also be found in section 2 of the CFATS Act of 2014, or in 6 U.S.C. 621-629.

    Option 1. High-risk chemical facilities may submit certain information about affected individuals that the Department will use to vet those individuals for terrorist ties. Specifically, the identifying information about affected individuals will be compared against identifying information of known or suspected terrorists contained in the federal government's consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), which is maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).7

    7 For more information about the TSDB, see DOJ/FBI—019 Terrorist Screening Records System, 72 FR 47073 (August 22, 2007).

    Option 2. High-risk chemical facilities may submit information about affected individuals who already possess certain credentials that rely on security threat assessments conducted by the Department. See 72 FR 17688, 17709 (April 9, 2007). This will enable the Department to verify the continuing validity of these credentials.

    Option 3. High-risk chemical facilities may comply with RBPS 12(iv) without submitting to the Department information about affected individuals who possess Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWICs), if a high-risk chemical facility electronically verifies and validates the affected individual's TWICs through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology that is periodically updated using the Canceled Card List).

    Option 4. High-risk chemical facilities may visually verify certain credentials or documents that are issued by a Federal screening program that periodically vets enrolled individuals against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). The Department continues to believe that visual verification has significant security limitations and, accordingly, encourages high-risk chemical facilities choosing this option to identify in their Site Security Plans the means by which they plan to address these limitations.

    Each of these options is described in further detail below in Section III.D.

    III. Contents and Requirements of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program

    The CFATS Personnel Surety Program enables the Department and high-risk chemical facilities to mitigate the risk that certain individuals with or seeking access to restricted areas or critical assets at high-risk chemical facilities may have terrorist ties.

    A. Who Must be Checked for Terrorist Ties?

    RBPS 12(iv) requires that certain individuals with or seeking access to restricted areas or critical assets at high-risk chemical facilities be checked for terrorist ties. These individuals are referred to as “affected individuals.” Specifically, affected individuals are facility personnel or unescorted visitors with or seeking access to restricted areas or critical assets at high-risk chemical facilities. High-risk facilities may classify particular contractors or categories of contractors either as “facility personnel” or as “visitors.” This determination should be a facility-specific determination, and should be based on facility-security considerations, operational requirements, and business practices.

    There are also certain groups of persons, which the Department does not consider to be affected individuals, such as (1) federal officials who gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as part of their official duties; (2) state and local law enforcement officials who gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as part of their official duties; and (3) emergency responders at the state or local level who gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets during emergency situations.

    B. Checking for Terrorist Ties During an Emergency or Exigent Situation

    In some emergency or exigent situations, access to restricted areas or critical assets by other individuals who have not had appropriate background checks under RBPS 12 may be necessary. For example, emergency responders who are not emergency responders at the state or local level may require such access as part of their official duties under appropriate circumstances. If high-risk chemical facilities anticipate that an individual will require access to restricted areas or critical assets without visitor escorts or without the background checks listed in RBPS 12 under exceptional circumstances (e.g., foreseeable but unpredictable circumstances), high-risk chemical facilities may describe such situations and the types of individuals who might require access in those situations in their SSPs. The Department will assess the situations described, and any security measures the high-risk chemical facility plans to take to mitigate vulnerabilities presented by these situations, as it reviews each high-risk chemical facility's SSP.

    C. High-Risk Chemical Facilities Have Flexibility When Implementing the CFATS Personnel Surety Program

    A high-risk chemical facility will have flexibility to tailor its implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to fit its individual circumstances and, in this regard, to best balance who qualifies as an affected individual, unique security issues, costs, and burden. For example a high-risk chemical facility may, in its Site Security Plan:

    • Restrict the numbers and types of persons allowed to access its restricted areas and critical assets, thus limiting the number of persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties.

    • Define its restricted areas and critical assets, thus potentially limiting the number of persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties.

    • Choose to escort visitors accessing restricted areas and critical assets in lieu of performing terrorist ties background checks under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The high-risk chemical facility may propose in its SSP traditional escorting solutions and/or innovative escorting alternatives such as video monitoring (which may reduce facility security costs), as appropriate, to address the unique security risks present at the facility.

    D. Options Available to High-Risk Chemical Facilities To Comply With RBPS 12(iv)

    The Department has developed a CFATS Personnel Surety Program that provides high-risk chemical facilities several options to comply with RBPS 12(iv). In addition to the alternatives expressly described in this notice, the Department will also permit high-risk chemical facilities to propose alternative measures for terrorist ties identification in their SSPs, which the Department will consider on a case-by-case basis in evaluating high-risk chemical facilities' SSPs. Of note, and as discussed further below, a high-risk chemical facility may choose one option or a combination of options to comply with RBPS 12(iv).

    Overview of Option 1

    The first option allows high-risk chemical facilities (or designee(s)) 8 to submit certain information about affected individuals to the Department through a Personnel Surety Program application in an online technology system developed under CFATS called the Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT). Access to and the use of CSAT is provided free of charge to high-risk chemical facilities (or their designee(s)).

    8 A designee is a third party that submits information about affected individuals to DHS on behalf of a high-risk chemical facility.

    Under this option, information about affected individuals submitted by, or on behalf of, high-risk chemical facilities will be compared against identifying information of known or suspected terrorists contained in the TSDB.9

    9 Detailed information about the submission of information about affected individuals under Option 1 to the Department for vetting purposes via CSAT can be found in the CSAT Personnel Surety Program User Manual available on www.dhs.gov/chemicalsecurity.

    If Option 1 is selected by a high-risk chemical facility in its SSP, the facility (or its designee(s)) must submit the following information about an affected individual to satisfy RBPS 12(iv):

    • For U.S. Persons (U.S. citizens and nationals as well as U.S. lawful permanent residents):

    ○ Full name

    ○ Date of Birth

    ○ Citizenship or Gender

    • For Non-U.S. Persons:

    ○ Full Name

    ○ Date of Birth

    ○ Citizenship

    ○ Passport information and/or alien registration number

    To reduce the likelihood of false positives in matching against records in the Federal Government's consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist, high-risk chemical facilities (or their designee(s)) are encouraged, but not required, to submit the following optional information about each affected individual:

    • Aliases

    • Gender (for Non-U.S. Persons)

    • Place of Birth

    • Redress Number10

    10 For more information about Redress Numbers, please go to http://www.dhs.gov/one-stop-travelers-redress-process#1.

    If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information about an affected individual under Option 1, the following table summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the Department.

    Table 01—Affected Individual Required and Optional Data Under Option 1 Data elements submitted to the department For a U.S. person For a non-U.S. person Full Name Required Date of Birth Required Gender Must provide Citizenship or Gender Optional. Citizenship Required. Passport Information and/or Alien Registration Number N/A Required. Aliases Optional Place of Birth Optional Redress Number Optional Overview of Option 2

    The second option also allows high-risk chemical facilities (or designee(s)) to submit certain information about affected individuals to the Department through the CSAT Personnel Surety Program application.11 This option allows high-risk chemical facilities and the Department to take advantage of the vetting for terrorist ties already being conducted on affected individuals enrolled in the TWIC Program, Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) Program, as well as the NEXUS, Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free and Secure Trade (FAST), and Global Entry Trusted Traveler Programs.

    11 Detailed information about the submission of information about affected individuals under Option 2 to the Department via CSAT can be found in the CSAT Personnel Surety Program User Manual available on www.dhs.gov/chemicalsecurity.

    Under Option 2, high-risk chemical facilities (or designee(s)) may submit information to the Department about affected individuals possessing the appropriate credentials to enable the Department to electronically verify the affected individuals' enrollments in these other programs. The Department will subsequently notify the Submitter 12 of the high-risk chemical facility whether or not an affected individual's enrollment in one of these other DHS programs was electronically verified. The Department will also periodically re-verify each affected individual's continued enrollment in one of these other programs, and notify the high-risk chemical facility and/or designee(s) of significant changes in the status of an affected individual's enrollment (e.g., if an affected individual who has been enrolled in the HME Program ceases to be enrolled, then the Department would change the status of the affected individual in the CSAT Personnel Surety Program application and notify the Submitter).13 Electronic verification and re-verification ensure that both the Department and the high-risk chemical facility can rely upon the continuing validity of an affected individual's credential or endorsement. As a condition of choosing Option 2, a high-risk chemical facility must describe in its SSP what action(s) it, or its designee(s), will take in the event the Department is unable to verify, or no longer able to verify, an affected individual's enrollment in the other DHS program. The high-risk facility must take some action and not leave the situation unresolved.

    12 A Submitter is a person who is responsible for the submission of information through the CSAT system as required in 6 CFR 27.200(b)(3).

    13 When the Department notifies the Submitter of the high-risk chemical facility of significant changes in the status of an affected individual's enrollment, such a notification should not be construed to indicate that an individual has terrorist ties or be treated as derogatory information.

    If Option 2 is selected by a high-risk chemical facility in it SSP, the high-risk chemical facility (or designee(s)) must submit the following information about an affected individual to satisfy RBPS 12(iv):

    • Full Name;

    • Date of Birth; and

    • Program-specific information or credential information, such as unique number, or issuing entity (e.g., State for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) associated with an HME).

    To further reduce the potential for misidentification, high-risk chemical facilities (or designee(s)) are encouraged, but not required, to submit the following optional information about affected individuals to the Department:14

    14 The CSAT Personnel Surety application will be constructed to enable submission of these optional data elements in the future. However, the ability to submit them in the initial phases of implementation of the program may be limited.

    • Aliases

    • Gender

    • Place of Birth

    • Citizenship

    If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information about an affected individual under Option 2, the following table summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the Department.

    Table 02—Affected Individual Required and Optional Data Under Option 2 Data elements submitted to the department For affected individual with a TWIC For affected individual with an HME For affected individual enrolled in a trusted traveler program (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or Global Entry) Full Name Required Date of Birth Required Expiration Date Required Unique Identifying Number TWIC Serial Number: Required CDL Number: Required PASS ID Number: Required. Issuing State of CDL N/A Required N/A. Aliases Optional Gender Optional Place of Birth Optional Citizenship Optional Overview of Option 3

    Under Option 3—Electronic Verification of TWIC, a high-risk chemical facility (or its designee(s)) will not submit to the Department information about affected individuals in possession of TWICs, but rather will electronically verify and validate the affected individuals' TWICs 15 through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology that is periodically updated with revoked card information). Any high-risk chemical facility that chooses this option must describe in its SSP the process and procedures it will follow if it chooses to use TWIC readers, including what action(s) it, or its designee(s), will take in the event the high-risk chemical facility is unable to verify the TWIC, or subsequently unable to verify an affected individual's TWIC. For example, if a TWIC cannot be verified through the use of a TWIC Reader, the high-risk chemical facility may choose to verify the affected individual's enrollment in TWIC under Option 2, or submit information about the affected individual under Option 1.

    15 Electronic verification and validation of an affected individual's TWIC requires authentication that the affected individual's TWIC (1) is a valid credential issued by TSA, and (2) has not been cancelled by the TSA, and (3) the biometric live sample matches the biometric template on the TWIC.

    Overview of Option 4

    Option 4—Visual Verification Of Credentials Conducting Periodic Vetting complies with section 2102(d)(2) of the Homeland Security Act and allows a high-risk chemical facility to satisfy its obligation under 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12)(iv) to identify individuals with terrorist ties using any Federal screening program that periodically vets individuals against the TSDB if:

    • The Federal screening program issues a credential or document,16

    16 This requirement is derived from section 2102(d)(2)(B)(i) of the Homeland Security Act.

    • The high-risk chemical facility is presented 17 a credential or document by the affected individual,18 and

    17 The Department considers records of credentials or documents maintained by the high-risk chemical facility, or designee, as having been presented by the affected individual. For example, if high-risk chemical facility (or designee) has in its personnel or access control files a photocopy of an affected individual's CDL with an HME, the high-risk chemical facility may consider the copy in its files as having been presented by the affected individual.

    18 Section 2102(d)(2)(B)(i)(II)(aa) of the Homeland Security Act requires high-risk chemical facilities to accept the credential or document from any federal screening program that conducts periodic vetting against the TSDB. Under Option 4, a high-risk chemical facility may contact the Department when drafting its SSP to determine if a specific credential or document is from a federal screening program that conducts periodic vetting against the TSDB.

    • The high-risk chemical facility verifies the credential or document is current in accordance with its SSP.19

    19 This requirement is derived from section 2102(d)(2)(B)(i)(II)(bb) of the Homeland Security Act.

    As a result, a high-risk chemical facility may verify that a credential or document is current based upon visual inspection, if the processes for conducting such visual inspections are described in its SSP. When developing such processes, the Department encourages high-risk chemical facilities to consider any rules, processes, and procedures prescribed by the entity issuing the credential or document. The Department believes that visual verification has inherent limitations and provides less security value than the other options available under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The Department encourages every high-risk chemical facility to consider a means of verification that is consistent with its specific circumstances and its assessment of the threat posed by the acceptance of such credentials. If a facility chooses to use Option 4, in whole or in part, it should also identify in its Site Security Plan the means by which it plans to address these limitations.

    An example of Option 4 that could be implemented by a high-risk chemical facility is to leverage the vetting conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on affected individuals who are employee possessors of a Federal explosives licensee/permittee. For example, a high-risk chemical facility may rely on a “letter of clearance” issued by ATF when presented by an affected individual who is also an employee-possessor of explosives. The high-risk chemical facility should describe in its SSP the procedures it will use to verify the letter of clearance is current. The Department will consider high-risk chemical facilities' proposals in the course of evaluating individual SSPs.

    E. High-Risk Chemical Facilities May Use More Than One Option

    High-risk chemical facilities have discretion as to which option(s) to use for an affected individual. For example, if an affected individual possesses a TWIC or some other credential or document, a high-risk chemical facility could choose to use Option 1 for that individual. Similarly, a high-risk chemical facility, at its discretion, may choose to use Option 1 or Option 2 rather than Option 3 or Option 4 for affected individuals who have TWICs or some other credential or document. High-risk chemical facilities also may choose to combine Option 1 with Option 2, Option 3, and/or Option 4, as appropriate, to ensure that adequate terrorist ties checks are performed on different types of affected individuals (e.g., employees, contractors, unescorted visitors). Each high-risk chemical facility must describe how it will comply with RBPS 12(iv) in its SSP.

    F. High-Risk Chemical Facilities May Propose Additional Options

    In addition to the options described above for satisfying RBPS 12(iv), a high-risk chemical facility is welcome to propose alternative or supplemental options not described in this document in its SSPs. The Department will assess the adequacy of such alternative or supplemental options on a facility-by-facility basis, in the course of evaluating each facility's SSP.

    G. Security Considerations for High-Risk Chemical Facilities To Weigh in Selecting Options

    The Department believes the greatest security benefit is achieved when a high-risk chemical facility selects either Option 1 and/or Option 2. Option 3 also provides significant security benefit. Option 4 provides some security benefit but less than Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3.

    Option 1 and Option 2 provide the greatest security benefit because the information submitted about each affected individual will be recurrently vetted against the TSDB. Recurrent vetting is a Department best practice and compares an affected individual's information against new and/or updated TSDB records as such records become available. Further, in the event that an affected individual with terrorist ties has or is seeking access to restricted areas or critical assets, if information about that affected individual is submitted to the Department under Option 1 or Option 2, the Department will be able to ensure that an appropriate Federal law enforcement agency is notified and that, as appropriate and consistent with law-enforcement and intelligence requirements, the facility receives notification as well.

    Option 3 also provides significant security benefit because information about affected individuals with TWICs is recurrently vetted against the TSDB. However, since the Department does not receive information about these affected individuals from high-risk chemical facilities under Option 3, the Department cannot ensure that the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency is provided information about the high-risk chemical facility at which any such affected individual with terrorist ties has or is seeking access.

    Finally, Option 4 provides a more-limited security benefit, as some Federal screening programs do not conduct recurrent vetting. Recurrent vetting compares an affected individual's information against new and/or updated TSDB records as those new and/or updated records become available. Recurrent vetting is a Department best practice because often records about terrorists are either created or updated in the TSDB after the initial vetting has already occurred. Consequently, recurrent vetting results in additional matches and provides substantial security value.

    In addition, relying on a visual inspection of a credential or document is not as secure as electronic verification because visual inspection may make it more difficult to ascertain whether a credential or document has expired, been revoked, or is fraudulent. For example, the visual verification of a TWIC will not reveal whether the TWIC has been revoked by the Transportation Security Administration. Similarly, visual verification of a Hazardous Material Endorsement on a commercial driver's license will not reveal if the endorsement has expired or been revoked.

    Finally, since the Department will not receive from high-risk chemical facilities information about affected individuals whose credentials are visually verified, the Department will be unable to ensure the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency is provided information regarding the risks posed to a high-risk chemical facility by any such affected individual with terrorist ties, nor will it be able to ensure that the facility receives appropriate notification of the risk.

    For the reasons described above, Option 4 provides less security value than the other options available to high-risk chemical facilities under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.

    H. When the Check for Terrorist Ties Must Be Completed

    The Department will notify high-risk chemical facilities, individually, when it will require each to address RBPS 12(iv) in its SSP. After that notification, a facility must update or draft its SSP to address RBPS 12(iv), as appropriate, prior to authorization or approval by the Department. After authorization or approval, a high-risk chemical facility (as described in its authorized or approved SSP) must complete the terrorist ties check required to be conducted on a particular affected individual by 6 CFR 27.230(a)(iv) prior to the affected individual being granted access to any restricted area or critical asset.20 For affected individuals with existing access, the Department will expect, unless otherwise noted in an authorized or approved SSP or ASP, that the terrorist ties check will be completed within 60 days after receiving authorization or approval of an SSP requiring the facility to implement measures to comply with RBPS 12(iv). A high-risk chemical facility may suggest an alternative schedule based on its unique circumstances in its SSP. Table 3 below outlines the four primary options, and the expected time a high-risk chemical facility will have to complete the required activity(ies) outlined in the authorized or approved SSP to comply with RBPS 12(iv) for new affected individual as well as affected individuals with existing access.

    20 The Department indicated (in previous notices the Department published to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act) that the terrorist ties check should be performed 48 hours prior to access. Although performing checks at least 48 hours in advance remains a best practice, the Department no longer expects all high-risk chemical facilities to perform checks in advance. The Department has changed this expectation in order to encourage high-risk chemical facilities to select Option 1, 2, and/or 3 when drafting SSPs.

    Table 3—Summary of Options To Check for Terrorist Ties Option for compliance Facility activity description Timeline for new affected individuals Timeline for affected individuals with existing access OPTION 1—Direct Vetting
  • OPTION 2—Use of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS Programs
  • OPTION 3—Electronic Verification of TWIC
  • OPTION 4—Visual Verification of Credentials Conducting Periodic Vetting
  • Facility submits information to the Department
  • Facility submits information to the Department
  • Facility uses a TWIC Reader
  • Facility conducts visual verifications by examining affected individuals' credentials or documents
  • Unless otherwise noted in an authorized or approved SSP, the Department expects that this activity will be completed prior to the affected individual being granted access to any restricted area or critical asset Unless otherwise noted in an authorized or approved SSP, the Department expects that this activity will be completed within 60 days after receiving authorization or approval of an SSP requiring the facility to implement measures to comply with RBPS 12(iv).
    Facility-Proposed Alternative Details about facility-proposed alternatives could vary significantly from facility to facility Details about facility-proposed alternatives could vary significantly from facility to facility Details about facility-proposed alternatives could vary significantly from facility to facility.
    IV. Additional Details About Option 1 and Option 2 (Which Involve the Submission of Information to the Department) A. Submission of a New Affected Individual's Information Under Option 1 or Option 2

    Under Option 1 or Option 2, a high-risk chemical facility may submit information about new affected individuals in accordance with its SSP. The Department encourages high-risk chemical facilities to submit information about affected individuals as soon as possible after an individual has been determined to be an affected individual. As described earlier in this notice, the high-risk chemical facilities must submit information prior to a new affected individual obtaining access to any restricted area or critical asset.

    B. Updates & Corrections to Information About Affected Individuals Under Option 1 or Option 2

    Section 2102(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Homeland Security Act prohibits the Department from requiring a high-risk chemical facility to submit information about an individual more than one time under Option 1 or Option 2. Therefore, under Option 1 or Option 2, a high-risk chemical facility may choose whether to submit data updates or corrections about affected individuals.

    The Department believes that there are substantial privacy risks if a high-risk chemical facility opts not to provide updates and corrections (e.g., updating or correcting a name or date of birth) about affected individuals. Specifically, the accuracy of an affected individual's personal data being vetted against the TSDB for terrorist ties may be affected. Accurate information both (1) increases the likelihood of correct matches against information about known or suspected terrorists, and (2) decreases the likelihood of incorrect matches that associate affected individuals without terrorist ties with known and suspected terrorist identities. As a result, the Department encourages high-risk chemical facilities to submit updates and corrections as they become known so that the Department's checks for terrorist ties, which are done on a recurrent basis, are accurate. If a high-risk chemical facility is either unable or unwilling to update or correct an affected individual's information, the affected individual may seek redress as described in the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Privacy Impact Assessment.21

    21 Concurrent with the publication of this implementation notice the Department is publishing a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) Update which is available at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    C. Notification That an Affected Individual No Longer Has Access Under Option 1 or Option 2

    Section 2102(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Homeland Security Act also prohibits the Department from requiring a high-risk chemical facility to notify the Department when an affected individual no longer has access to the restricted areas or critical assets of a high-risk chemical facility. Therefore, under Option 1 or Option 2, a high-risk chemical facility has the option to notify the Department when the affected individual no longer has access to any restricted areas or critical assets, but such notification is not required. The Department strongly encourages high-risk chemical facilities to notify the Department when an affected individual no longer has access to restricted areas or critical assets to ensure the accuracy of the Department's data and to stop the recurrent vetting on the person who is no longer an affected individual. If a high-risk chemical facility is either unable or unwilling to notify the Department when an affected individual no longer has access to restricted areas or critical assets, the affected individual may seek redress as described in the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Privacy Impact Assessment.

    D. What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option 1 and Option 2

    High-risk chemical facilities are responsible for complying with RBPS 12(iv). However, companies operating multiple high-risk chemical facilities, as well as companies operating only one high-risk chemical facility, may comply with RBPS 12(iv) in a variety of ways. A high-risk chemical facility, or its parent company, may choose to comply with RBPS 12(iv) by identifying and directly submitting to the Department the information about affected individuals. Alternatively, a high-risk chemical facility, or its parent company, may choose to comply with RBPS 12(iv) by outsourcing the information-submission process to third parties.

    The Department also anticipates that many high-risk chemical facilities will rely on businesses that provide them with contract services (e.g., complex turn-arounds, freight delivery services, landscaping) to identify and submit the appropriate information about affected individuals the contract services employ to the Department under Option 1 and Option 2.

    Both third parties that submit information on behalf of high-risk chemical facilities and businesses that provide services to high-risk chemical facilities must be designated by the high-risk chemical facility within CSAT in order to submit appropriate information about affected individuals to the Department on behalf of the high-risk chemical facility.22

    22 Information about how to designate a third party within CSAT is explain in the CFATS Personnel Surety Program User Manual available on www.dhs.gov/chemicalsecurity.

    V. CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities

    Under Options 1 and 2 (as described above), high-risk chemical facilities have wide latitude in assigning CSAT user roles to align with their business operations and/or the business operations of third parties that provide contracted services to them. The Department has structured the CSAT Personnel Surety Program application to allow designee(s) of high-risk chemical facilities to submit information about affected individuals directly to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical facilities.

    High-risk chemical facilities and designee(s) will be able to structure CSAT user roles to submit information about affected individuals to the Department in several ways, including but not limited to the following:

    • A high-risk chemical facility may directly submit information about affected individuals, and designate one or more officers or employees of the facility with appropriate CSAT user roles; and/or

    • A high-risk chemical facility may ensure the submission of information about affected individuals by designating one or more persons affiliated with a third party (or with multiple third parties); and/or

    • A company owning several high-risk chemical facilities could consolidate its submission process for affected individuals. Specifically, the company could designate one or more persons to submit information about affected individuals on behalf of all or some of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities within the company on a company-wide basis.

    Third parties interested in providing information about affected individuals to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical facilities may request a CSAT user account from the high-risk chemical facility or company for which the third party will be working. Third parties will not be able to submit information about affected individuals until a high-risk chemical facility designates the third party within CSAT to submit information on its behalf.

    A high-risk chemical facility (or designee(s)) may submit information under Option 1 or Option 2 after the facility's SSP has been approved or authorized by the Department for RBPS 12(iv).

    VI. Privacy Considerations

    High-risk chemical facilities (or designee(s)) may maintain information about an affected individual, for the purpose of complying with CFATS, which is not submitted to the Department as part of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program (e.g., for compliance with RBPS 12(i)-(iii), or for recordkeeping pertaining to Option 3 or Option 4). Information not in the possession of and not submitted to the Department is not covered under the Privacy Act of 1974. Nevertheless, the Department expects that high-risk chemical facilities and designee(s) will protect and safeguard any such information as outlined in their SSPs and in accordance with any other Federal, State, or local privacy laws that are applicable to the collection of the information, just as the high-risk chemical facilities would for other similar information collected under a their normal business practices for activities unrelated to CFATS.

    A. Privacy Act Requirements To Enable Option 1 and Option 2

    The Department complies with all applicable federal privacy requirements including those contained in the Privacy Act, the E-Government Act, the Homeland Security Act, and Departmental policy. The United States also follows international instruments on privacy, all of which are consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs).23 The Department:

    23See Privacy Policy Guidance Memorandum, The Fair Information Practice Principles: Framework for Privacy Policy at the Department of Homeland Security, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_policyguide_2008-01.pdf (December 29, 2008).

    • Published a System of Records Notice (SORN) for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program on June 14, 2011 as well as a SORN Update on May 19, 2014.24

    24See DHS/NPPD-002—Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program System of Records, 79 FR 28752, available at www.dhs.gov/privacy (May 19, 2014).

    • Issued a Final Rule 25 to exempt portions of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program SORN from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements on May 21, 2014.

    25See Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/National Protection and Programs Directorate—002 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program System of Records, 79 FR 29072, available at www.dhs.gov/privacy (May 21, 2014).

    • Published a CFATS Personnel Surety Program Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in May 2011, and a CFATS Personnel Surety Program PIA Update on May 1, 2014. Concurrent with the publication of this implementation notice the Department is publishing a second PIA Update which is available at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    With the publication of these privacy documents, the Department has ensured that the CFATS Personnel Surety Program complies with the appropriate privacy laws and Department of Homeland Security privacy policies.

    B. Redress

    The CFATS Personnel Surety Program complies with the requirement of section 2102(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Homeland Security Act to provide redress to an individual: (1) Whose information was vetted against the TSDB under the program; and (2) who believes that the personally identifiable information submitted to the Department for such vetting by a covered chemical facility, or its designated representative, was inaccurate. The Department has described how to seek redress in the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Privacy Impact Assessment.

    C. Additional Privacy Considerations Related to Option 1 and Option 2

    The Submitter(s) of each high-risk chemical facility (or designee(s)) will be required to affirm that, in accordance with its SSP, notice required by the Privacy Act of 1974 has been given to affected individuals before their information is submitted to the Department. The Department has made available a sample Privacy Act notice that complies with subsection (e)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3)) in the CFATS Personnel Surety Program PIA Update being published concurrently with this notice.26 The sample notice, or a different satisfactory notice, must be provided by a high-risk chemical facility to affected individuals prior to the submission of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to the Department under Option 1 and Option 2. This notice must: (1) Notify those individuals that their information is being submitted to DHS for vetting against the TSDB, and that in some cases additional information may be requested and submitted in order to resolve a potential match; (2) instruct those individuals how to access their information; (3) instruct those individuals how to correct their information; and (4) instruct those individuals on procedures available to them for redress if they believe their information has been improperly matched by the Department to information contained in the TSDB. Individuals have the opportunity and the right to decline to provide information; however, if an individual declines to provide information, he or she may impact a high-risk chemical facility's compliance with CFATS.

    26 The CFATS Personnel Surety Program PIA Update, as well as other privacy related documents, are available at on the Department's Web site at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    D. Additional Privacy Considerations for Option 3 and Option 4

    A high-risk chemical facility will not submit information to the Department if the facility opts to electronically verify and validate affected individuals' TWICs through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology that is periodically updated with revoked card information) under Option 3. High-risk chemical facilities that opt to implement Option 3 are encouraged, but are not required, to provide notice to each affected individual whose TWIC is being verified and validated. Although Option 3 allows high-risk chemical facilities to comply with RBPS 12(iv) without submitting information to the Department, the Department feels that appropriate notice should still be given to those individuals so that they know their TWICs are now being used to comply with 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12)(iv). The Department has provided a sample privacy notice for high-risk chemical facilities to use in the CFATS Personnel Surety Program PIA Update, published May 1, 2014. A revised sample Privacy Act notice is also included in the PIA Update being published concurrently with this notice.

    In addition, a high-risk chemical facility will not submit information to the Department if the facility opts to utilize Option 4 and to visually inspect a credential or document for any Federal screening program that periodically vets individuals against the TSDB. High-risk chemical facilities that opt to implement Option 4 are encouraged, but are not required, to provide notice to each affected individual whose Federal screening program credential or document is being visually inspected in order to comply with 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12)(iv).

    VII. Information a High-Risk Chemical Facility May Wish To Consider Including in its SSP

    When writing, revising, or updating their SSPs, high-risk chemical facilities may wish to consider including information about the following topics to assist the Department in evaluating the adequacy of the security measures outlined in the SSP for RBPS12(iv):

    1. General

    • Who does the facility consider an affected individual and how does the facility identify affected individuals?

    ○ Who does the facility consider facility personnel and how does the facility identify them?

    ○ Who does the facility consider unescorted visitors and how does the facility identify them?

    • If the facility escorts any visitors, how does it escort them?

    • How does the facility define its restricted areas and/or critical assets for the purposes of RBPS 12?

    • Does the facility include computer systems or remote access as either a restricted area or critical asset?

    • Which Option(s), or alternative approaches not described in this notice, will the facility or its designee(s) use to check for terrorist ties?

    • Does the facility intend to use one or more Options for some affected individuals that it will not use for other affected individuals? If so, which Option(s) apply to which groups of affected individuals?

    • Will the facility opt to have a designee(s) submit information about affected individuals? If so, what guidance will the high-risk chemical facility establish for designee(s) when it submits information (e.g., when are affected individuals considered to be “facility personnel” “unescorted visitors,” how will the facility verify that notice has been provided to an affected individual before information about him/her is provided to the Department)?

    • Does the high-risk chemical facility anticipate that any individuals will require access to restricted areas or critical assets without visitor escorts or without the background checks listed in RBPS 12 under exceptional circumstances (e.g., foreseeable but unpredictable circumstances)? If so, who? If so, which exceptional circumstances would warrant access without visitor escorts or without the background checks listed in RBPS 12?

    2. With Regard to Option 1

    • How will notice be provided to affected individuals that information is being provided to the Department?

    3. With Regard to Option 2

    • How will notice be provided to affected individuals that information is being provided to the Department?

    • What will the facility do if NPPD is unable to verify an affected individual's enrollment in another Department TSDB vetting program?

    • What will be the timeframe for this follow-on action?

    • What will the facility do if NPPD does verify the credential, but later during a periodic re-verification, is unable verify the credential?

    • What will be the timeframe for this follow-on action?

    • Does the facility describe how it will comply with RBPS 12(iv) for affected individuals without credentials capable of being verified under Option 2?

    4. With Regard to Option 3

    • How will the facility identify those affected individuals who possess TWICs?

    • How will the facility comply with RBPS 12(iv) for affected individuals without TWICs?

    • How will the facility electronically verify and validate TWICs of affected individuals?

    • Which reader(s) or Physical Access Control System (PACS) will the facility be using? Or, if it is not using readers, how it will use the CCL or CRL?

    • Where will the reader(s) or PAC(s) be located?

    • What mode or modes (i.e., which setting on the TWIC Reader) will be used when verifying and validating the TWIC of an affected individual? 27

    27 See table 4.1 on page 18 of the TSA reader specification at (http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/twic/twic_reader_card_app_spec.pdf).

    • Will the TWIC of an affected individual be re-verified and re-validated with TWIC readers, and, if so, how often?

    • What will the facility (or designee(s)) do if an affected individual's TWIC cannot be verified or if the TWIC reader is not functioning properly?

    5. With Regard to Option 4

    • Upon which Federal screening program(s) does the facility or designee intend to rely?

    • What document(s) or credential(s) issued by the Federal screening program(s) will the facility visually verify?

    • What procedures will the facility use to allow affected individuals to present document(s) or credential(s)?

    • How will the facility verify that the credential or document presented by affected individuals is not fraudulent?

    • What procedures will the facility follow to visually verify that a credential or document is current and valid (i.e., not expired)?

    • Will the visual verification include the following?

    ○ Comparing any picture on a document or credential to the bearer of the credential or document;

    ○ Comparing any physical characteristics listed on the credential or document (e.g., height, hair color, eye color) with the bearer's physical appearance;

    ○ Checking for tampering;

    ○ Reviewing both sides of the credential or document and checking for the appropriate stock/credential material;

    ○ Checking for an expiration date; and

    ○ Checking for any insignia, watermark, hologram, signature or other unique feature.

    • What will the facility do if it is unable to visually verify an affected individual's credential or document, if the credential or document fails visual verification, or if the credential or document appears invalid, expired, or fraudulent?

    6. With Regard to Other Options

    • A facility that chooses to propose an option not listed above in its SSP should provide as much detail as possible to allow the Department to consider the potential option and evaluate whether or not it meets the RBPS 12(iv) standard.

    Caitlin Durkovich, Assistant Secretary, Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31625 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Airport Security AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0002, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). TSA is combining two previously-approved ICRs (1652-0002 and 1652-0006, Employment Standards) into this single request to simplify TSA collections, increase transparency, and reduce duplication.1 The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on September 1, 2015, 80 FR 52778. The collection involves implementing certain provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and 49 U.S.C. chapter 449 that relate to providing for the safety and security of persons and property on an aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against an act of criminal violence, aircraft piracy, and the introduction of an unauthorized weapon, explosive, or incendiary onto an aircraft.

    1 After the publication of the 60 day notice, TSA decided to include in OMB control number 1652-0002, Airport Security, 49 CFR part 1542, the recordkeeping requirements under OMB Control Number 1652-0006 Employment Standards, which apply to 49 CFR part 1542. This would reduce duplication and combine information collected under the same statute, 49 CFR part 1542. Upon OMB approval of this revision, TSA intends to discontinue OMB Control Number 1652-0006 Employment Standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by January 19, 2016. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (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.

    Information Collection

    Title: Airport Security, 49 CFR part 1542.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0002.

    Forms(s): NA.

    Affected Public: Airport operators regulated under 49 CFR part 1542.

    Abstract: TSA is seeking to revise its OMB control number 1652-0002, Airport Security, 49 CFR part 1542 to include the recordkeeping requirements under OMB control number 1652-0006, Employment Standards. The information collection is used to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 1542 and to ensure passenger safety and security by verifying airport operator compliance with security procedures. The following information collections and other recordkeeping requirements with which respondent airport operators must comply also fall under this OMB control number: (1) Development of an Airport Security Program (ASP), submission to TSA, and ASP implementation; (2) as applicable, development of ASP amendments, submission to TSA, and implementation; (3) collection of data necessary to complete a criminal history records check (CHRC) for those individuals with unescorted access to a Security Identification Display Area (SIDA); (4) submission to TSA of identifying information about individuals to whom the airport operator has issued identification media, such as name, address, and country of birth, in order for TSA to conduct a Security Threat Assessment (STA); (5) recordkeeping requirements associated with records required for compliance with the regulation, and for compliance with Security Directives (SDs); and (6) watch list matching of individuals subject to TSA's regulatory requirements against government watch lists.

    This information collection is mandatory for airport operators. As part of their security programs, affected airport operators are required to maintain and update, as necessary, records of compliance with the security program provisions set forth in 49 CFR part 1542. This regulation also requires affected airport operators to make their security programs and associated records available for inspection and copying by TSA to verify compliance with transportation security regulations.

    Number of Respondents: 438.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 1,657,102 hours annually.

    Dated: December 9, 2015. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31913 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration [Docket No. TSA-2007-28572] Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Secure Flight Program AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0046, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision to the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on February 4, 2015, 80 FR 6097. The collection involves information that certain U.S. aircraft operators and foreign air carriers (collectively “covered aircraft operators”) submit to Secure Flight for the purposes of identifying and protecting against potential and actual threats to transportation security and identifying individuals who are a lower risk to transportation security and therefore may be eligible for expedited screening. TSA is revising this collection to include the addition of risk-based assessments generated by aircraft operators using data in their Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening Systems (CAPPS), Frequent Flyer Code Words (FFCWs) generated by aircraft operators, and the collection of lists of low-risk individuals provided by non-federal entities who are eligible for expedited screening. The CAPPS assessments and FFCWs are used in risk-based analysis of Secure Flight and other prescreening data that produces a boarding pass printing result (BPPR) for each passenger.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by January 19, 2016. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to:

    (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.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: Secure Flight Program.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0046.

    Form(s): N/A.

    Affected Public: Aircraft operators, airport operators.

    Abstract: TSA collects information from covered aircraft operators, including foreign air carriers, in order to prescreen passengers under the Secure Flight Program. The information collected under the Secure Flight Program is used for watch list matching, for matching against lists of Known Travelers, and to assess passenger risk (e.g., to identify passengers who present lower risk and may be eligible for expedited screening). The collection covers:

    (1) Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD) for passengers of covered domestic and international flights within, to, from, or over the continental United States, as well as flights between two foreign locations when operated by a covered U.S. aircraft operator;

    (2) SFPD for passengers of charter operators and lessors of aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of over 12,500 pounds;

    (3) certain identifying information for non-traveling individuals that airport operators or airport operator points of contact seek to authorize to enter a sterile area at a U.S. airport, for example, to patronize a restaurant, to escort a minor or a passenger with disabilities, or for another approved purpose; and

    (4) registration information critical to deployment of Secure Flight, such as contact information, data format, or the mechanism the covered aircraft operators use to transmit SFPD and other data.

    TSA is revising this collection to add the following additional categories of information:

    (5) Risk-based assessments generated by U.S. aircraft operators using their CAPPS are sent to Secure Flight for use in risk-based analysis of passenger information. The CAPPS assessments are generated after analysis of the underlying passenger and other prescreening data is obtained by the aircraft operator in the ordinary course of business when the passenger makes his or her reservation. The CAPPS assessment, in turn, is used in the risk-based analysis of SFPD and other prescreening data that produce a BPPR for each passenger. Secure Flight receives only the risk assessment generated from the applicable CAPPS data and not the underlying data. TSA obtains important security value from the risk assessment without receiving the underlying privacy and other information that are generated when individuals make their flight reservations. The CAPPS assessments are designed to enhance TSA's analysis of passenger security risk and enable TSA to make better passenger risk decisions. A likely outcome of the addition of CAPPS risk assessments to Secure Flight's risk-based analysis will be the identification of additional low-risk passengers who may be eligible for expedited security screening at airports with TSA Pre✓® lanes.

    (6) FFCW generated by aircraft operators also are sent to Secure Flight regarding passengers who are frequent flyer program members. These data also are used in Secure Flight's risk-based analysis and may result in a passenger being eligible for expedited screening.

    (7) Lists of low-risk individuals who are eligible for expedited screening provided by Federal and non-federal entities. In support of TSA Pre✓®, TSA implemented expedited screening of known or low-risk travelers. Federal and non-federal list entities provide TSA with a list of eligible low-risk individuals to be used as part of Secure Flight processes. Secure Flight identifies individuals who should receive low risk screening and transmits the appropriate boarding pass printing result to the aircraft operators.

    Both the CAPPS risk assessments and the FFCWs are generated from existing data within aircraft operators' reservations or other systems. The systemic changes required to send these data to Secure Flight varies by aircraft operator.

    Number of Respondents: 292.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 678,295 1 hours annually.

    1 After further evaluation, TSA has revised the estimated annual burden hours in the 60-day notice, published February 4, 2015, from 678,245 to 678,295.

    Dated: December 9, 2015. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31911 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Federal Flight Deck Officer Program AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), OMB control number 1652-0011, abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on September 1, 2015, 80 FR 52779. The collection requires interested volunteers to fill out an application to determine their suitability for participating in the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) Program, and deputized FFDOs to submit written reports of certain prescribed incidents.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by January 19, 2016. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (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.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0011.

    Forms(s): N/A.

    Affected Public: Volunteer pilots, flight engineers, and navigators.

    Abstract: The Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) Program enables TSA to screen, select, train, deputize, and supervise qualified volunteer pilots, flight engineers, and navigators to defend the flight decks of commercial passenger and all-cargo airliners against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Information collected as the result of this proposal would be used to assess the eligibility and suitability of prospective and current FFDOs, to ensure the readiness of every FFDO, to administer the program, and for security purposes.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 5,833 hours annually.

    Dated: December 15, 2015. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31908 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0061] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program and Supplement, Form I-924 and I-924A; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0061 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0046. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2007-0046;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0046 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Regional Center Designation under the Immigrant Investor Program and Supplement.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-924 and Form I-924A; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals representing any economic unit, public or private, in the United States that is involved with promoting economic growth. This collection will be used by such individuals to ask USCIS to be designated as a regional center under the Immigrant Investor Program, to request an amendment to a previously approved regional center designation, or to demonstrate continued eligibility for designation as a regional center under the Immigrant Investor Program.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-924 is 663 and the estimated hour burden per response is 40 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection for Form I-924A is 730 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 28,710 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $912,691.

    Dated: December 14, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31805 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-51] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: AIR FORCE: Mr. Robert E. Moriarty, P.E., AFCEC/CI, 2261 Hughes Avenue, Ste. 155, JBSA Lackland, TX 78236-9853; AGRICULTURE: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; ARMY: Ms. Veronica Rines, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Department of Army, Room 5A128, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310, (571) 256-8145; COE: Mr. Scott Whiteford, Army Corps of Engineers, Real Estate, CEMP-CR, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314; (202) 761-5542; ENERGY: Mr. David Steinau, Department of Energy, Office of Property Management, OECM MA-50, 4B122, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585 (202) 287-1503; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; NAVY: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management; Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426; (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: December 10, 2015. Brian P. Fitzmaurice, Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 12/18/2015 Suitable/Available Properties Building Alabama 2 Buildings Fort Rucker Fort Rucker AL 36362 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540030 Status: Underutilized Directions: 25107-RPUID: 576526 (2,721 SQ. FT.; Airfield Fire and Rescue Facility); 30305-RPUID: 250776 (4,422 SQ. FT.; Ready Bldg) Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; removal extremely difficult due to type/size; fair conditions; contact Army for more information on a specific property listed above. 60110 SHELL AF, FORT RUCKER Ft. Rucker AL 36330 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540032 Status: Underutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; extremely difficult to remove due to type/size; 8,319 SQ. FT.; ADMIN GEN PURP; 50% is occupied; poor conditions; contact Army for more information. Arkansas 10′X24′ Concrete Floor & Slab Roof 10299 Bay Ridge Dr. Daradanelle AR 72834 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201540003 Status: Underutilized Comments: 240 sq. ft.; rec. facility (campground) restroom; fair conditions; contact COE for more information. Georgia Building 14 Camp Frank D. Merrill Fort Benning GA 31905 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540052 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; 120 sq. ft.; 51+ yrs. old; veh. fuel mogas; poor conditions; contact Army for information. Building 08638-RPUID 283107 Mortar Training Area off Wildcat Road Fort Benning GA 31905 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540053 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; 192 sq. ft.; 10+ yrs.-old; sep toil/shower; poor conditions; contact Army for more information. Building 08728 3279 10th Armored Division Road Fort Benning GA Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540054 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; 192 sq. ft.; 9+ yrs.-old; sep toil/shower; poor conditions; contact Army for more information. North Carolina 3 Buildings Fort Bragg Ft. Bragg NC 28310 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540061 Status: Unutilized Directions: Q3113-1034505 (64 sq. ft.); Q3414-1034511 (64 sq. ft.); Q2322-296150 (17 sq. ft.) Comments: very poor conditions; contact Army for more information on a specific property listed above. Oklahoma 6 Buildings Fort Sill Ft. Sill OK 73503 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540034 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1500 (100 SQ. FT.; Fueling/POL/Wash Support Bldg); 1501 (9,802 SQ. FT.; Vehicle Maintenance Shop); 1502 (9,938 SQ. FT.; Vehicle Maintenance Shop); 1503 (10,190 SQ. FT.; Limited Use Instructional Bldg); 1521 (80 SQ. FT.; Oil Storage Building); 2590 (3,626 SQ. FT.; ADMIN GENERAL PURPOSE) Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; removal difficult due to type/size;6+ mons.vacant; contamination; contact Army for more information on a specific property listed above. Puerto Rico 2 Buildings USAG Fort Buchanan RQ327 Fort Buchanan PR 00934 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540057 Status: Excess Directions: 01024 (300 sq. ft.; storage); 01026 (300 sq. ft.; storage) Comments: off-site removal only; poor conditions; contact Army for more information on a property listed above. Tennessee 3 Buildings Fort Campbell Ft. Campbrll TN Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540017 Status: Unutilized Directions: 6995 (RPUID: 594789; 3,687 SQ. FT.; OFFICE); 07825 (RPUID: 590376; 15,111 SQ. FT.; Ammo Repair); A6924 (RPUID: 598990; 3,688 SQ. FT.; OFFICE) Comments: fair to poor conditions; asbestos present; contact Army for more information on a specific property listed above. Texas 90005; RPUID: 285770 Clarke Road Fort Hood TX Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540012 Status: Excess Comments: off-site removal only; removal extremely difficult due to type; 181 sq. ft.; Navigation Building, Air; contact Army for more information. 27000 67TH STREET Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540020 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 284 sq. ft.; TERM EQUIP BLDG; 1+ month vacant; ASBESTOS; contact Army for more information. 92044; RPUID: 286348 Loop Road Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540021 Status: Excess Comments: off-site removal only; removal extremely difficult due to type/size; 1,920 SQ. FT.; Admin General Purpose; lead and asbestos contamination; contact Army for more information. 1348 (RPUID: 313187) North Avenue Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540022 Status: Excess Comments: off-site removal only; 654 sq. ft; Admin General Purpose; fair/moderate conditions; Asbestos located in Building caulking and putties; contact Army for more information. 86000 BATTALION AVE Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540023 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 284 sq. ft.; TERM EQUIP BLDG; 1+ month vacant; ASBESTOS; contact Army for more information. 4496 WAREHOUSE AVE. Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540024 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; 284 sq. ft; TERM EQUIP BLDG; 1+ month vacant; fair/moderate conditions; ASBESTOS; contact Army for more information; no future agency need. 91003; RPUID: 286087 West Headquarters Avenue Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540025 Status: Excess Comments: off-site removal only; removal extremely difficult due to type; 325 sq. ft.; Storage General Purpose; possible lead and asbestos contamination; contact Army for more information. 36017; RPUID: 174093 Wratten Drive Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540027 Status: Excess Comments: off-site removal only; removal extremely difficult due to type/size; 2,400 sq. ft.; Laboratory; contact Army for more information. 12000 OLD IRONSIDES RD Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540028 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 284 sq. ft.; TERM EQUIP BLDG; 1+ month vacant; ASBESTOS; contact Army for more information. Virginia 2 Buildings Lee Blvd. Fort Eustis VA 23604 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540029 Status: Unutilized Directions: 822 (205 sq. ft.); 876 (651 sq. ft.) Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; removal difficult due to type/condition; very poor conditions; contact Air Force for more information. 2 Buildings Mulberry Island Rd. Fort Eustis VA 23604 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540030 Status: Unutilized Directions: 3511 (437 sq. ft.); 3913 (767 sq. ft.) Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; removal difficult due to type/condition; very poor conditions; contact Air Force for more information. Land Nebraska P-4 GHUA 1419 Hwy 19 Sidney NE 82081 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540031 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1 acre; launch facility in ground; contact Air Force for more information. Texas Fee Purchase Land-99201 Eldorado AFS Eldorado TX 76936 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540009 Status: Excess Comments: 119 acres; 192+ months vacant; contact Air Force for more information. Wyoming 11 Plots of Land Diamond/Iron Mountain Rd. Chugwater WY 82210 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540013 Status: Unutilized Directions: Q-10 GHYT; Q-9 GHYS; Q-11 GHYU; Q-8 GHYR; Q-2 GHYK; Q-3 GHYL; Q-4 GHYM; Q-5 GHYN; P-11 GHYH; P-10 GHYG; P-9 GHYF Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 9 Plots of Land Air Force Lagrange/Chugwater WY 82221 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540014 Status: Unutilized Directions: R-02 GHYW; R-04 GHWX; R-05 GHYZ; R-06 GHZA; R-07 GHZA; R-08 GHZC; R-09 GHZD; R-10 GHZE; R-11 GHZF Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land Hilldale Hilldale WY 82060 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540015 Status: Unutilized Directions: P-5 GHYB; P-7 GHYD Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. Q-7 GHYQ 1603 Rd. 237 Carpenter WY 82054 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540016 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1 acre; contact Air Force for more information. 3 Plots of Land Meriden Meriden WY 82081 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540017 Status: Unutilized Directions: P-6 GHYC; P-Z GHXY; P-3 GHYZ Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. Q-6 GHYP AND P-8 GHYE 1381 Rd. 228 Cheyenne WY 82002 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540018 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land Air Force Huntley WY 82218 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540019 Status: Unutilized Directions: S-4 GHZK; S-5 GHZL Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. S-2 GHZG 6291 Rd. 47 Torrington WY 82240 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540020 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1 acre; contact Air Force for more information. 3 Plots of Land Air Force Hawk Springs WY 82217 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540021 Status: Unutilized Directions: S-8 GHZP; S-7 GHZN; S-6 GHZM Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land Deer Creek Dr. Wheatland WY 82201 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540022 Status: Unutilized Directions: T-2 GHZU; T-3 GHZV Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land Dickerson Rd. Brodeaux WY 82201 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540023 Status: Unutilized Directions: T-4 GHZW; T-9 GJAB Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. T-5 GHZX and T-6 GHZY 387 Slater Rd. Slater WY 82201 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540024 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land Slater Rd. Slater WY 82201 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540025 Status: Unutilized Directions: T-7 GHZZ; T-8 GJAA Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land Snook/Grayrocks Rd. Wheatland WY 82201 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540026 Status: Unutilized Directions: T-10 GJAC; T-11 GJAD Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land State Hwy Veteran WY 82243 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540027 Status: Unutilized Directions: S-10 GHZR; S-11 GHZS Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. 2 Plots of Land ST STE Hwy Yoder WY 82244 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540028 Status: Unutilized Directions: S-3 GHZJ; S-9 GHEQ Comments: 1 acre each; contact Air Force for more information on a specific plot of land. Unsuitable Properties Building Alaska Building 2092 Kinney Rd. Fort Wainwright AK 99703 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540005 Status: Underutilized Comments: located w/in floodway which has not been corrected or contained; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area; Floodway Arkansas 4 Buildings Little Rock AFB Little Rock AR 72099 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540001 Status: Underutilized Directions: B-222; B1502; B-2905; B-1500 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 11 Buildings Little Rock AFB Little Rock AR 72099 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540011 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1432; 1439; 1437; 1435; 1431; 1420; 1418; 1417; 1416; 1415; 1389 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 16340 Fleming Drive Pine Bluff Arsenal AR 71602 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540035 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area California Bldg. 480 500 Crissy St. Travis AFB CA 94535 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540008 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative methods to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Colorado 7 Buildings Fort Carson Fort Carson CO 80902 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540018 Status: Unutilized Directions: 5557 (RPUID: 591785); 5559 (RPUID: 596873); 5561 (RPUID: 601301); 5563 (RPUID: 577607); 5565 (RPUID: 593788); 5567 (RPUID: 591786); 5569 (RPUID: 591787) Comments: (Property located within floodway which has not been correct or contained). Reasons: Floodway 12 Buildings Fort Carson Ft. Carson CO 80902 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540019 Status: Unutilized Directions: 5540 (RPUID: 610022); 5541 (RPUID: 586846); 5542 (RPUID: 616626); 5543 (RPUID: 598076); 5544 (RPUID:567013); 5545 (RPUID:596871); 5546 (RPUID: 593098); 5547 (RPUID: 616627); 5549 (RPUID: 616627); 5551 (RPUID: 596872); 5553 (RPUID: 606097); 5555 (RPUID: 606639) Comments: (Property located within floodway which has not been correct or contained). Reasons: Floodway Florida Building 1053 7416 MacDill Ave. MacDill AFB Tampa FL 33621 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540005 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Georgia Facility 21 145 Beale Dr. Robins AFB GA 31098 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540033 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Illinois Building 5713 2221 East Dr. Scott AFB IL 62225 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540007 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 2 Buildings Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island IL 61299 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540041 Status: Underutilized Directions: 215-RPUID: 366364; 215B-PUID: 1170018 Comments: public access denied and no alternative to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Maryland 4 Buildings Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Proving Grou MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540006 Status: Unutilized Directions: 530-RPUID: 232987; 00502-RPUID:231120; 00504-RPUID: 231122; 00507-RPUID:231124 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 10 Buildings Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Proving Grou MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540008 Status: Unutilized Directions: E2499-RPUID: 1115220; 248-RPUID: 233131; 324-RPUID: 233380; 00325-RPUID: 233381; 335-RPUID: 233389; 00336-RPUID: 233390; 00342-RPUID: 233396; 00343-RPUID: 233397; 00501-RPUID: 21119; 00503-RPUID: 231121 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 10 Buildings Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Proving Grou MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540009 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1100A-RPUID: 232502; 5112-RPUID: 231874; E1426-RPUID: 230361; E2144-RPUID: 231462; E2180-RPUID: 231474; E2200-RPUID: 236777; E3100-RPUID: 229840; E3240-RPUID: 225691; E3245-RPUID: 1233661; E5027-RPUID: 235043 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 10 Buildings Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540010 Status: Unutilized Directions: 00320-RPUID: 233377; 00534-RPUID: 232990; 00894-RPUID: 229860; 01096-RPUID: 230735; 2352-RPUID: 232067; 4314-RPUID: 230781; 00938-RPUID: 229876; E1932-RPUID: 231449; E1942-RPUID: 230062; 00535-RPUID: 232991 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 10 Buildings Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Proving Grou MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540011 Status: Unutilized Directions: E5032-RPUID: 981051; E5060-RPUID: 235049; E5140-RPUID: 235827; E5172-RPUID: 235834; E5173-RPUID: 235835; E5244-RPUID: 235853; E5352-RPUID: 236079; E5429-RPUID: 236092; E5826-RPUID: 237105; E7987-RPUID: 234070 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 3 Buildings Fort Detrick, Forest Glen Annex; Stephen Sitter Avenue Fort Detrick MD 20901 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540014 Status: Unutilized Directions: 00152; 00156; 0175A Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 10 Buildings Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Proving Grou MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540043 Status: Underutilized Directions: E2162-RPUID: 231464; E2166-RPUID: 231465; E2182-RPUID: 231475; E2188-RPUID: 236771; E2194-RPUID: 236773; E2198-RPUID: 236776; E5061-RPUID: 235050; E5101-RPUID: 230074; E5842-RPUID: 237111; E5844-RPUID: 237112 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 8 Buildings Aberdeen Providing Ground Aberdeen Providing Gr MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540044 Status: Unutilized Directions: E5848-RPUID: 237114; E5860-RPUID: 237116; E5862-RPUID: 237117; E5884-RPUID: 237129; E5886-RPUID: 237130; E5892-RPUID: 237888; E5894-RPUID: 237889; E5896-RPUID: 237890 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Building 00922 922 Live Fire Lane Aberdeen Proving Grou MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540045 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Michigan Building 835 Fitness Facility/Thrift 43515 n. Jefferson Ave. Selfridge ANGB MI 48045 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540034 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Missouri 9 Buildings Fort Leonard Wood Ft. Leonard Wood MO Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540058 Status: Unutilized Directions: 682-RPUID: 575534; 683-RPUID: 581273; 781-RPUID: 593764; 887-RPUID: 593487; 2307-RPUID: 573663; 2341-RPUID: 597115; 4199-RPUID: 579050; 5027-RPUID: 595346; 5167-RPUID: 593968 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 9 Buildings Fort Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood MO Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540059 Status: Unutilized Directions: 5279-RPUID: 618544; 5422-RPUID: 598786; 5426-RPUID: 618281; 5432-RPUID: 615691; 5442-RPUID: 582917;5452-RPUID: 587677;5502-RPUID: 606152; 5584-RPUID: 582723; 5733-RPUID: 594089 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 2 Buildings Fort Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood MO Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540060 Status: Unutilized Directions: 12652-RPUID:607957; 668 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Nebraska Bldg. 382 605 Nelson Dr. Offutt NE 68113 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540004 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Nevada 2 Buildings Hawthorne Army depot Hawthorne Army Depot NV Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540040 Status: Unutilized Directions: 0C261-RPUID: 330817; 10341-RPUID: 319518 Comments: flam/explos. materials are located on adjacent industrial, commercial, or Federal facility; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area;Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material New Jersey 12 Buildings JBML JBML NJ 08640 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540006 Status: Unutilized Directions: 94281; 94631; 90451; 9078; 9000; 9214; 9159; 9479; 9469; 9853; 9823; 9841 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area New Mexico Building 150 Cannon AFB Cannon NM 88103 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540010 Status: Underutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area New York 12 Buildings Fort Drum Ft. Drum NY 13602 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540015 Status: Unutilized Directions: BRK11 (RPUID: 1193675); BRK12 (RPUID: 1193672); BRK13 (RPUID: 1193812); BRK14 (RPUID: 1193815); BRK15 (RPUID: 1193814); BRK16 (RPUID: 1193816); BRK17 (RPUID: 1193813); BRK18 (RPUID: 1193850); BRK19 (RPUID: 1193852); BRK20 (RPUID: 1193851); BRK21 (RPUID: 1193854); BRK22 (RPUID: 1193853) Comments: property located within an airport runway clear zone or military airfield; Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area 3 Buildings Fort Drum Ft. Drum NY 13602 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540016 Status: Unutilized Directions: BRK23 (RPUID: 1193853); BRK24 (RPUID: 1193884); BRK25 (RPUID: 1193885) Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 1236 US Army Garrison, West Point West Point NY 10996 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540033 Status: Unutilized Comments: document deficiencies: condemned; ceilings, walls, flooring, doors, and windows are rotted and beyond repair; wood deteriorated to state of non-repair; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration 10 Buildings Fort Drum Ft. Drum NY 13602 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540055 Status: Unutilized Directions: BRK01 (RPUID: 1193186); BRK02 (RPUID: 1193187) BRK03 (RPUID: 1193237); BRK04 (RPUID: 1193238); BRK05 (RPUID: 1193240); BRK06 (RPUID: 1193239); BRK07 (RPUID: 1193241); BRK08 (RPUID: 1193669); BRK09 (RPUID: 1193674); BRK10 (RPUID: 1193671) Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area North Carolina 27 Buildings Fort Bragg Cumberland NC 28310 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540002 Status: Unutilized Directions: 15132-RPUID: 581224; M6460-RPUID: 610295; M2348-RPUID: 958708; E4325-RPUID: 613768; A5428-RPUID: 597133; M6146-RPUID: 597164; M6143-RPUID: 576307; M2646-RPUID: 958720; M6445-RPUID: 595599; M2360-RPUID: 958714; M6438-RPUID: 557152; M6450-RPUID: 577153; M6733-RPUID: 609986; M6746-RPUID: 571513; M6751-RPUID: 584516; M2359-RPUID: 958713;A5628-RPUID: 581440; M6433-RPUID: 590748;A5630-RPUID: 593150; M2357-RPUID: 958713; M2338-RPUID: 958304; M2340-RPUID: 958305; M2342-RPUID: 958704; M2343-RPUID: 958705; M2345-RPUID: 958706; M2350-RPUID: 958709; M2351-RPUID: 958710 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 5 Buildings Fort Bragg Fort Bragg NC 28310 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540003 Status: Underutilized Directions: 15433-RPUID: 1034408; 15533-RPUID: 1034409; 15631-RPUID: 607469; 15730-RPUID: 297551; F1231-RPUID: 575616 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 20 Buildings Fort Bragg Cumberland NC 28310 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540004 Status: Underutilized Directions: 85303; A3764; D3022; H3237; H3554; M2346; M2353; M2356; M2505; M2642; M2650; M2651; M2653; M5051; M6142; M6205; M6150; P2341; X6088; M2640 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Pennsylvania S2705 & S2706 Letterkenny Army Depot Letterkenny Army Depo PA 17201 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540031 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Puerto Rico 29 Buildings Victory Road; USAG FORT BUCHANAN, RQ327 Fort Buchanan PR 00934 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540013 Status: Excess Directions: 01029; 01030; 01031; 01032; 01033; 01034; 01035; 01036; 01037; 01038; 01039; 01040; 01041; 01042; 01043; 01044; 01046; 01047; 01048; 01049; 01050; 01051; 01052; 01054; 01055; 01056; 01057; 01058; 01061 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Building 00215 Fort Allen Training Center Rd. #1 Juan Diaz PR 00795 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540049 Status: Unutilized Comments: documented deficiencies: condemned due to a fault in the structural integrity; foundation instability and deterioration the walls and ceilings have fallen. Reasons: Extensive deterioration 3 Buildings Camp Santiago Trng Center (RQ577) Salinas PR 00751 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540050 Status: Unutilized Directions: 00415-RPUID: 951222; 00416; 00414 Comments: documented deficiencies: condemned; due to structural integrity walls and foundation are cracked. Reasons: Extensive deterioration Texas Pick up Truck Storage Shed 9 620900B009; USDA/ARS Bushland TX 70912 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201540004 Status: Underutilized Directions: PO Drawer 10,23000 Experiment Station Dr. Comments: documented deficiencies: significantly deteriorated due to rotten framing and holes in structure. Reasons: Extensive deterioration 10649 Sheppard AFB Sheppard TX 76311 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540002 Status: Underutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area B4493 Sheppard AFB Sheppard TX 76311 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540003 Status: Underutilized Comments: documented deficiencies: partially collapsing; unsound foundation; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Extensive deterioration 9111; RPUID: 180441 Hell on Wheels Avenue Fort Hood TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540026 Status: Excess Comments: documented deficiencies: property has holes in the structure that most likely will result in collapse if removed off-site; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration 16 Buildings Fort Bliss El Paso TX 79916 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540051 Status: Unutilized Directions: 03682; 03693; 05041; 05043; 05044; 05045; 07013; 07021; 09495; 09683; 11269; 11519; 11520; 11626; 11660; 11682 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Building 1736 Naval Air Station; 547 5th Street Corpus Christi TX 78419 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201540014 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Utah 16 Buildings DUGWAY PROVING GROUND DUGWAY PROVING GROUND UT 84022 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540036 Status: Underutilized Directions: 00001-RPUID: 570563; 00003-RPUID: 588352; 00005-RPUID: 588352; 00007-RPUID: 611072; 00011-RPUID: 614435; 00020-RPUID: 611287; 00021-RPUID: 614434; 00022-RPUID: 570464; 00023-RPUID: 599972; 00024-RPUID: 575282; 00025-RPUID: 586999; 00027-RPUID: 570566; 00029-RPUID: 587000; 00031-618225;33-RPUID: 599973; 37-RPUID: 587002 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 20 Buildings DUGWAY PROVING GROUND DUGWAY PROVING GROUND UT 84022 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540037 Status: Underutilized Directions: 00154-598832; 00156-595717; 00158-574114; 00162-603757; 00163-574115; 00164-585779; 00167-595718; 00171-586937; 00173-607725; 00175-574117; 00177-603576; 00180-575781; 00181-575670; 00183-574119; 00185-598833; 00186-595719; 00187-609946; 00197-609948; 00198-579166; 00201-600412 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 20 Buildings DUGWAY PROVING GROUND DUGWAY PROVING GROUND UT 84022 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540038 Status: Underutilized Directions: 00205-609949; 00209-602438; 00256-583679; 00303-600093; 00306-616070; 00313-590335; 00321-587745; 00325-583680; 00329-573173; 00351-579174; 00361-600095;5236-581055; 05362-579151; 05363-576303; 05367-573490; 05375-575942; 05381-578690; 05382-583591; 05383-599699; 05390-604657 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 14 Buildings DUGWAY PROVING GROUND DUGWAY PROVING GROUND UT 84022 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540039 Status: Underutilized Directions: 00069-RPUID: 599975; 00093-RPUID: 618228; 00152-RPUID: 621801; 00103-RPUID: 587003; 00107-RPUID: 611292; 00113-RPUID: 605404; 00118-RPUID: 590378; 00119-RPUID: 606737; 00123-RPUID: 577667; 00125-RPUID: 577668; 00127-RPUID: 607723; 00129-RPUID: 574112; 00131-RPUID: 577669; 00140-RPUID: 606738 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Virginia 06217 Fort Lee Ft. Lee VA 23801 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540029 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 1555A Radford Army Ammunition Plant; Rte. 114 P.O. Box 2 Radford VA 24143 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540042 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area West Virginia Building 11 3610 Collins Ferry Rd. Morgantown WV 26507 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41201540003 Status: Excess Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Land Alaska Aucke Bay Marine Station 11305 Glacier Hwy Juneau AK 99801 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201540016 Status: Excess GSA Number: 9-C-AK-0855 Directions: Landholding Agency: NOAA; Disposal Agency: GSA Comments: military (Coast Guard) use only; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Arkansas 60 Acres Harris Rd. Little Rock AR 72099 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540012 Status: Unutilized Comments: located w/in floodway which has not been corrected or contained; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Floodway; Secured Area Georgia Facility 7525 145 Beale Dr. Robins AFB GA 31098 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201540032 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Maryland 4 Concrete Pads Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen MD 21005 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201540056 Status: Unutilized Directions: E3176-981045; E5335-981052; E5628-996138; E7226-981063 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area
    [FR Doc. 2015-31504 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5774-N-04] Promise Zones Initiative: Third Round Selection Process AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this notice, HUD provides notice on the selection process, criteria, and application submission for the third round of the Promise Zone initiative.

    DATES:

    Application due date is 5:00 p.m. EST on February 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested eligible organizations are invited to submit applications for a Promise Zone designation. Questions or comments regarding the application process should be directed by email to [email protected]. Questions or comments may also be directed by postal mail to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7136, Washington, DC 20410 ATTN: Promise Zone Selections.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Herdliska, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Rm 7136, Washington, DC, 20410; telephone number 202-402-6758. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the establishment of the Promise Zones initiative to partner with high-poverty communities across the country to create jobs, increase economic security, expand educational opportunities, increase access to quality, affordable housing, and improve public safety.1 On January 8, 2014, the President announced the first five Promise Zones, which are located in: San Antonio, TX; Philadelphia, PA; Los Angeles, CA; Southeastern Kentucky, KY; and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, OK. On April 28, 2015, eight more Promise Zones were designated as part of the second round Promise Zone selection process. They are located in: Camden, NJ; Hartford, CT; Indianapolis, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Sacramento, CA; St. Louis, MO; South Carolina Low Country; and Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, SD. Each of these communities (nine urban, two rural, and two tribal) submitted a plan on how it will partner with local business and community leaders to make investments that reward hard work and expand opportunity. In exchange, the Federal government is helping these Promise Zone designees secure the resources and flexibility they need to achieve their goals.2 The urban designations were conferred by HUD, while the rural and tribal designations were conferred by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    1 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/15/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-ensure-hard-work-leads-decent-living.

    2 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/08/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-promise-zones-initiative.

    Promise Zones Benefits

    The Promise Zone designation partners the Federal government with local leaders who are addressing multiple community revitalization challenges in a collaborative way and have demonstrated a commitment to results. Further, Promise Zones will be assigned Federal staff to help navigate the array of Federal assistance and programs already available to them. In addition, eligible applicants in Promise Zones will receive any available (a) preference for certain competitive Federal programs and (b) technical assistance. Subject to enactment by Congress, businesses investing in Promise Zones or hiring residents of Promise Zones will be eligible to receive tax incentives. Altogether, this package of assistance will help local leaders accelerate efforts to revitalize their communities.

    The Promise Zone designation will be for a term of 10 years and may be extended as necessary to capture the full term of availability of the Promise Zone tax incentives, if the tax incentives are enacted. During this term, the specific benefits made available to Promise Zones may vary from year to year, and sometimes more often than annually, due to changes in Federal agency policies and changes in appropriations and authorizations for relevant programs. All assistance provided to Promise Zones is subject to applicable regulations, statutes, and changes in federal agency policies, appropriations, and authorizations for relevant programs. Subject to these limitations, the Promise Zone designation commits the Federal government to partner with local leaders who are addressing multiple community revitalization challenges in a collaborative way and have demonstrated a commitment to results.

    Response to Public Comment

    On July 29, 2015, HUD published a notice in the Federal Register at 80 FR 45227 to solicit comments from first and second round applicants, interested parties, and the general public on the Promise Zones initiative and the proposed selection process for the of Promise Zone designations. The public comment period closed on September 28, 2015. HUD received 21 communications containing public comments. HUD and USDA, in consultation with federal interagency partners of the Promise Zone initiative, provided responses to public comments on the application process which have been included in the updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQs can be found at www.hud.gov/promisezones.

    Promise Zones Selection Process

    This notice announces the opening of the application period for the third round of Promise Zone designations. HUD and USDA have reorganized and revised the Application Guide to clarify elements that applicants found particularly difficult and incorporated some comments. The MAX Survey online survey system, which is used for submitting certain components of the application, has also been reorganized. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. EST on February 23, 2016 with announcements expected in 2016. As a result of this competition, HUD intends to designate five urban communities and USDA intends to designate one rural and one tribal community. A total of 20 Promise Zone designations will be made by the end of calendar year 2016.

    Due to the cross-disciplinary nature of the initiative, the list of eligible Lead Applicants has been updated to reflect that Promise Zone activities are likely to be carried out by a variety of organizations and organization types, including organizations that have specific roles in the delivery of programs funded by different Federal agencies. Most such organizations are eligible under the categories of governmental and nonprofit organizations that were previously listed as eligible Lead Applicants. HUD and USDA included examples might encourage communities to engage organizations that are the most appropriate to respond to their needs and lead revitalization efforts. Eligible Lead Applicants for Urban Promise Zone designations are: Units of General Local Government (UGLG); 3 An office/department of a local government submitting on behalf of the local government under a local delegation of authority; Nonprofit organizations applying with the support of the UGLG; and Public Housing Agencies, Community Colleges, Local Education Agencies (LEAs), or Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) applying with the support of the UGLG.

    3 Unit of general local government as defined in section 102(a)(1) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)). See definition (a) (1) Unit of General Local Government.

    Eligible Lead Applicants for Rural and Tribal Promise Zone designations are: Local governments (which includes county, city, town, township, parish, village, governmental authority or other general-purpose political subdivision of a state or combination thereof) and Federally-recognized tribes; 4 Nonprofit organizations applying in partnership with local government or tribal government; Housing authorities applying in partnership with local government, or Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) applying in partnership with tribal government; or Local Education Agencies (LEAs) applying in partnership with local or tribal government; or community colleges applying in partnership with local or tribal government.

    4 “Tribal applicants” are: Federally-recognized tribes as well as duly established political subdivisions of a Federally-recognized tribe. A “Federally-recognized tribe” is any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 USCS §§ 1601 et seq.], that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) A Nonprofit organization applying in partnership with a Federally-recognized tribal government may apply as a tribal applicant.

    Any Lead Applicant whose proposed Promise Zone boundaries meet the qualifying criteria set forth in the Third Round Application Guide is eligible to apply for a Promise Zone designation. All of the following must be present in an application for a proposed Urban Promise Zone to be eligible for a designation: (1) Proposed Promise Zone must have one contiguous boundary and cannot include separate geographic areas; 5 (2) The rate of overall poverty or

    5 Applicants are required to use the Promise Zone mapping tool to show both the boundary and the poverty levels. The mapping tool emails this information as a PDF to the applicant. This PDF, in its entirety, must be included in the application. See page 33 of the Application Guide for more information on the mapping tool.

    Extremely Low Income rate (whichever is greater) of residents within the Promise Zone must be at or above 32.5%; 6 (3) Promise Zone boundaries must encompass a population of at least 10,000 but no more than 200,000 residents; (4) The Promise Zone application must affirmatively demonstrate support from all mayors or chief executives of UGLGs that include any geographical area within the proposed Promise Zone boundary, subject to the following conditions:

    6 The reported poverty rate or Extremely Low Income rate will be rounded to the nearest .1%.

    Counties and county equivalents (collectively “counties”).7 The chief executive of a county must demonstrate support for any Promise Zone Plan (Plan) that includes an area within the unincorporated boundaries of the county. The chief executive of a county may support as many Plans as he or she wishes in incorporated areas within the county, but may only support one Plan that includes an area within the unincorporated boundaries of the county. If the chief executive of a county supports multiple Plans, the chief executive must include an explanation of how the county intends to work with multiple designees at the same time and sustain the necessary level of effort, resources, and support for each designee for the full term of each designation.

    7 Note the reference to county includes all county equivalents, such as parishes.

    UGLGs other than counties. For UGLGs other than counties, the chief executive of an UGLG must demonstrate support for a Plan that includes any area within the geographic boundaries of the UGLG. The chief executive of UGLGs that are not counties may support only one Plan. If the chief executive of an UGLG that is not a county supports more than one Plan, HUD will disqualify all Promise Zone applications supported by that chief executive.

    Crossing Jurisdictions. The Promise Zone application must demonstrate support for the Plan from all chief executives of UGLGs included within the proposed Promise Zone boundary. The chief executive of a county must demonstrate support for any Plan that includes area within the unincorporated boundaries of the county. For UGLGs other than counties, the chief executive of an UGLG must demonstrate support for a Plan that includes any area within the geographic boundaries of the UGLG. For example, a Plan that includes areas in two cities requires the support of the chief executives from both cities. A Plan that includes area within the boundaries of a city and the unincorporated boundaries of the county requires support from the chief executive of the city and the chief executive of the county.

    UGLGs with Designated Promise Zones. If a Promise Zone designated in Round 1 or 2 is located within a UGLG in which a new application is being submitted, the applicant must include an explanation of how, if a second Promise Zone designation is made, the UGLG plans to work with both of the Promise Zone designees at the same time and sustain the level of effort, resources and support committed to each Promise Zone under its respective Promise Zone Plan for the full term of each Promise Zone designation. This explanation must be evidenced by commitments from the UGLG in materials submitted by the chief executive in support of the application.

    Is support from
  • the chief
  • executive of
  • City X required?
  • Is support of the
  • chief executive of
  • City Y required?
  • Is support of the
  • chief executive
  • of County
  • Z required?
  • The PZ Plan is for an area entirely within the boundaries of City X. Yes.* No. No.** The PZ Plan is for an area entirely within the boundaries of City Y. No. Yes.* No.** The PZ Plan is for an area entirely within the boundaries of unincorporated area of County Z. No. No. Yes.*** The PZ Plan consists of area within City X and City Y. Yes* Yes.* No.** The PZ Plan consists of area within City Y and an area within the unincorporated boundaries of County Z. No. Yes.* Yes.*** The PZ Plan consists of area within City X, area within City Y, and area within the unincorporated boundaries of County Z. Yes.* Yes.* Yes.*** * For UGLGs other than counties, the chief executive of an UGLG must demonstrate support for a Plan that includes any area within the geographic boundaries of the UGLG. ** However, the chief executive of a county may support as many Plans as he or she wishes in incorporated areas within the county. *** The chief executive of a county must demonstrate support for any Promise Zone Plan that includes area within the unincorporated boundaries of the county.
    Rural and Tribal Promise Zone Designations

    All the following must be present to be eligible for a Rural or Tribal Promise Zone designation: (1) Rural and Tribal Promise Zones must encompass one or more census tract(s) across a contiguous geography.8 Rural applicants can define their boundaries by either census tracts or by county, where multiple counties are included. Tribal applicants can define boundaries which may encompass: one or more census tracts and nearby tribally-controlled areas; or reservations; or consortia of tribal and non-tribal jurisdictions; (2) Promise Zone boundaries must encompass a population of no more than 200,000 residents.9 The population limit of 200,000 may not include any incorporated municipalities or unincorporated areas with individual populations greater than 50,000. Rural and tribal Promise Zones may fall in non-metro and metro counties; (3) The rate of overall poverty or Extremely Low Income rate (whichever is greater) 10 of residents within the Promise Zone must be at or above 20 percent and the Promise Zone must contain at least one census tract with a poverty rate at or above 30 percent; 11 and (4) Local leadership must demonstrate commitment to the Promise Zone effort. Tribal applications must include commitment of tribal jurisdiction(s) represented. Proposed Promise Zone boundaries may cross UGLG or tribal area lines, but one Lead Applicant must be identified, and for cross-jurisdictional applications, commitment must be demonstrated by the leadership of all UGLGs or tribal areas involved.

    8 For rural and tribal applications, Promise Zone boundaries that cross state lines and water borders can be considered contiguous.

    9 The population limit of 200,000 is intended to allow for regional collaboration among multiple communities of varying sizes and capacities. The rural eligibility criteria ensure, by definition, that rural Promise Zone applications cannot include communities over 50,000.

    10 The estimated concentration of Extremely Low Income (ELI) households represents an approximation of the percent of households within the specified area whose household combined income is below 30% of the HUD defined Area Median Income (AMI). This ELI indicator is calculated with data from the block group level from Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2010. The final number included in this report for “poverty rate” is the greater of these two indicators.

    11 Applicants are required to use the Promise Zones mapping tool to determine the overall poverty rate. The mapping tool determines the overall poverty rate in two ways and uses the higher percentage.

    Application Review

    Applications for Promise Zone designations will be reviewed by representatives from USDA, HUD, the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Transportation. Additional Federal agencies and outside entities may contribute reviewers, depending upon the anticipated volume of applications.

    Reviewers will first verify that the application is submitted by an applicant eligible for selection, by verifying that the proposed Promise Zone meets the qualifying criteria and that the Lead Applicant meets the eligibility criteria for the third round selection process. For urban applications, reviewers will confirm the subcategory in which each application should be considered (large Metropolitan Core Based Statistical Area (Metro CBSA) or small/medium Metro CBSA).12

    12 Urban application subcategories are defined as: Large Metro CBSA: The proposed Promise Zone community is located in a Metropolitan Core Based Statistical Area (Metro CBSA) with a total population of 500,000 or more. Small/medium Metro CBSA: The proposed Promise Zone community is located within the geographic boundaries of a Metro CBSA with a population of 499,999 or less. Additional information regarding Metropolitan Core Based Statistical Areas and Principal City can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf.

    Rural applications will be ranked against other rural applications, tribal applications will be ranked against other tribal applications, and urban applications will be ranked against other urban applications. An application must score a total of 75 points or more out of 100 points, to be considered for a designation (scoring 75 points or more means that applications fall within the “competitive range”). Once scored, applications will be ranked competitively within each of the three Promise Zones categories and within the urban subcategories, as applicable.

    HUD intends to designate at least one applicant from the small/medium Metro CBSA sub-category if the highest scoring small/medium Metro CBSA application is comparable in quality to other urban designees (within 10 points of the lowest scoring designee and not otherwise disqualified in accordance with all other requirements contained within this application guide). If the number of eligible applications determined to be eligible for the small/medium Metro CBSA subcategory is fewer than the greater of 1) five total applications, or 2) ten percent of the total number of urban applications received, then the applications in the small/medium Metro CBSA subcategory will be included in the large Metro CBSA subcategory and ranked against those applications.

    Application Submission

    Applications must provide a clear description of how the Promise Zone designation would accelerate and strengthen the community's efforts at comprehensive community revitalization. No substantive or technical corrections will be accepted or reviewed after the application deadline. The Application Guide can be found at www.hud.gov/promisezones. Applications are due via the Promise Zone online application portal on MAX Survey by 5:00 p.m. EST on February 23, 2016. Directions on how to access and use the application portal are available at www.hud.gov/promisezones.

    If the Lead Applicant requests to use alternative data sources to meet the eligibility criteria or for the Need application section, a one-page explanation noting the alternative data source must be submitted to [email protected] with the subject line “Alternative data source request” by February 2, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. EST to be approved by the relevant designating agency (HUD or USDA).

    Dated: December 14, 2015. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-31884 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5871-N-03] Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Third Quarter of Calendar Year 2015 AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly Federal Register notices of all regulatory waivers that HUD has approved. Each notice covers the quarterly period since the previous Federal Register notice. The purpose of this notice is to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act. This notice contains a list of regulatory waivers granted by HUD during the period beginning on July 1, 2015, and ending on September 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the third quarter of calendar year 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:

    1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;

    2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;

    3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. These notices (each covering the period since the most recent previous notification) shall:

    a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;

    b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;

    c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;

    d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and

    e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.

    This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.

    This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.

    Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.

    Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.

    Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the third quarter of calendar year 2015) before the next report is published (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2015), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the third quarter in the next report.

    Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.

    Dated: December 11, 2015. Helen R. Kanovsky, General Counsel. Appendix Listing of Waivers of Regulatory Requirements Granted by Offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development July 1, 2015 Through September 30, 2015 Note to Reader:

    More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.

    The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:

    I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.

    II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.

    III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

    I. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 58.22(a).

    Project/Activity: The Norwalk Redevelopment Agency requested a waiver of 24 CFR 58.22(a) for the modernization of the Globe Theater in Norwalk, CT as part of the downtown Wall Street Redevelopment Plan.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 58.22(a) provides that “until the Request for Release of Funds and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity...if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.”

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistance Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: September 23, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project demonstrated that it would help promote economic development in downtown Norwalk. Further, the developer did not intentionally violate the regulation; no HUD funds were committed; and based on the environmental review and the HUD field inspection, it was concluded that granting a waiver for this project would not result in any unmitigated, adverse environmental impact.

    Contact: Lauren B. McNamara, Office of Environment and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7212 Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4466.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 58.22(a).

    Project/Activity: The City of Simi Valley, CA requested a waiver of 24 CFR 58.22(a) for the construction of the Camino Esperanza Apartments that will feature 30 HOME-assisted units together with tax-credit financing.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 58.22(a) provides that “until the Request for Release of Funds and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity . . . if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.”

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistance Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: September 16, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project demonstrated it would help meet the needs of low-income seniors and seniors with disabilities for affordable housing, and that the project would not be feasible without HOME financing. Further, the recipient did not intentionally violate the regulations; no HUD funds were committed; and based on the environmental assessment and the HUD field inspection, it was concluded that granting a waiver for this project would not result in any unmitigated, adverse environmental impact. The process ensured the protection of wetlands on one end of the parcel and the protection of the senior citizens from railroad noise via a noise wall.

    Contact: Lauren B. McNamara, Office of Environment and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7212, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4466.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2).

    Project/Activity: The City of Detroit, MI requested a waiver of 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) to shorten the comment period for the use of $8.9 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery and other funding that was originally appropriated for Federal Fiscal Year 2013. The funds would assist with planning and implementation costs associated with resilient projects in the Brightmoor, Mt. Elliot and McDougall-Hunt neighborhoods, stemming from August 2014 flooding damage.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) requires that citizens be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on substantial amendments to its consolidated plan. The citizen participation plan requires that citizens be given no less than 30 days to comment on substantial amendments before they are implemented. The city requested the public comment period for the substantial amendment be shortened from 30 days to 7 days. The period of time for the obligation of the funding that was originally appropriated for Federal Fiscal Year 2013 expired on September 30, 2015, under the annual appropriations act.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: August 25, 2015.

    Reason Waived: HUD has determined that better planning and a reduced comment period would increase the pace of the city's recovery and ensure that the CDBG funds and other funding will be used effectively. Some of the $8.9 million in CDBG funds being made available to the city were appropriated in Federal Fiscal Year 2013, and the period for obligation of that funding expired on September 30, 2015. The city could not complete its citizen participation and amendment process and enter into a grant agreement before September 30th with a 30-day comment period. By granting the city's request to waive the requirement at 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) both the city and the Department would be able to ensure the obligation of these CDBG funds prior to their expiration on September 30, 2015 and make it likely that the city will fulfill its citizen participation requirements, thereby ensuring that the congressional intent of using the funds consistent with the purposes of the Act will be achieved.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director of Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500 (d)(1)(B) and 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C)

    Project/Activity: Jefferson Parish Consortium, LA requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(B) and 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) to provide additional time to commit and expend its annual allocation of HOME funds in order to facilitate the ongoing recovery from the devastation caused by Hurricane Isaac.

    Nature of Requirements: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(B) requires a HOME participating jurisdiction to commit its annual allocation of HOME funds within 24 months after HUD notifies the participating jurisdiction that it has executed the HOME Investment Partnership Agreement. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) requires a HOME participating jurisdiction to expend its annual allocation of HOME funds within five years after HUD notifies the participating jurisdiction that it has executed the HOME Investment Partnership Agreement.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Community Planning & Development.

    Date Granted: July 24, 2015

    Reasons Waived: As a result of Hurricane Isaac, HUD suspended the FY 2011 deadline for the commitment of HOME funds and the FY 2008 expenditure requirement. The Consortium has requested a suspension of its September 30, 2014, commitment deadline and waiver of its October 31, 2014, expenditure deadline. The Consortium currently has a commitment shortfall of $1,453,977 and an expenditure shortfall of $2,679,758. The suspension of these deadlines would enable the Consortium to retain the HOME funds otherwise subject to recapture.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C).

    Project/Activity: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C), which requires that a participating jurisdiction expend its annual allocation of HOME Funds within five years after HUD notifies the participating jurisdiction that HUD has executed the jurisdiction's HOME Investment Partnership Agreement.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) requires HUD to reduce or recapture any HOME funds in a participating jurisdiction's (PJ's) HOME Investment Trust Fund that are not expended within five years of HUD's notification to the PJ that is has executed its HOME grant agreement. The Commonwealth failed to disburse $12,177,614 of HOME grant funds by its July 31, 2015, deadline.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: July 24, 2015.

    Reason Waived: In August and October of 2014, the Commonwealth repaid large amounts to its HOME Program Treasury Account to resolve HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit findings that it expended HOME funds for ineligible expenditures. Because of the size and timing of these repayments, the Commonwealth did not have adequate time to commit the repaid funds to new affordable housing projects and expend them for costs associated with those projects. HUD granted the waiver to permit the Commonwealth additional time to expend funds on new affordable housing projects, because deobligating $12,177,614 under these circumstances would create an undue hardship of low-income residents of the Commonwealth who need standard, affordable housing.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C).

    Project/Activity: New Castle County, DE requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C), which requires that a participating jurisdiction expend its annual allocation of HOME Funds within five years after HUD notifies the participating jurisdiction that HUD has executed the jurisdiction's HOME Investment Partnership Agreement.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) requires HUD to reduce or recapture any HOME funds in a participating jurisdiction's (PJ's) HOME Investment Trust Fund that are not expended within five years of HUD's notification to the PJ that is has executed its HOME grant agreement. The County failed to disburse $412,204 of HOME grant funds by its June 30, 2015, deadline.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: July 24, 2015.

    Reason Waived: In April, 2015, the County repaid a large amount to its HOME Program Treasury Account to resolve monitoring findings related to two rental housing projects that were not completed. Because the funds were repaid just 2 months before the expenditure deadline, it was not possible for the County to commit the funds to a new affordable housing project and expend the funds for an eligible cost associated with that project. HUD granted the waiver to permit the County sufficient time to commit and expend the funds on new affordable housing projects that will serve low-income residents.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C).

    Project/Activity: The City of Buffalo, NY requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C), which requires that a participating jurisdiction expend its annual allocation of HOME funds within five years after HUD notifies the participating jurisdiction that HUD has executed the jurisdiction's HOME Investment Partnership Agreement.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) requires HUD to reduce or recapture any HOME funds in a participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund that are not expended within five years of HUD's notification to the participating jurisdiction that is has executed its HOME grant agreement. The City failed to disburse $3,072,861 of HOME grant funds by its June 30, 2015, deadline.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: July 24, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The City's ability to expend HOME funds was suspended for more than a year pending resolution of HUD monitoring findings. HUD granted the waiver to permit the City sufficient time to commit and expend the funds on new affordable housing projects that will serve low-income residents.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C).

    Project/Activity: The County of Westchester, NY requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C), which requires that a participating jurisdiction expend its annual allocation of HOME funds within five years after HUD notifies the participating jurisdiction that HUD has executed the jurisdiction's HOME Investment Partnership Agreement.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) requires HUD to reduce or recapture any HOME funds in a participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund that are not expended within five years of HUD's notification to the participating jurisdiction that is has executed its HOME grant agreement. The County failed to disburse $141,723 of HOME grant funds by its July 31, 2014, deadline.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: July 24, 2015.

    Reason Waived: In April, 2014, the County repaid a large sum of HOME funds to its HOME Program Treasury Account and did not have adequate time to expend these funds on new affordable housing projects. Because the funds were repaid just 2 months before the expenditure deadline, it was not possible for the County to commit the funds to a new affordable housing project and expend the funds for an eligible cost associated with that project. HUD granted the waiver to permit the County sufficient time to commit and expend the funds on new affordable housing projects that will serve low-income residents.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(g).

    Project/Activity: The City of Detroit, MI requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.200(g) to allow more than 20 percent of Community Development Block Grant funds to be used to assist with planning costs associated with resilient projects in the Brightmoor, Mt. Elliot and McDougall-Hunt neighborhoods, stemming from August 2014 flooding damage.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 570.200(g) (Limitation on planning and administrative costs) provides that no more than 20 percent of the sum of any grant, plus program income, shall be expended for planning and program administrative costs, as defined in §§ 570.205 and 507.206, respectively. Recipients shall conform with this requirement by limiting the amount of CDBG funds obligated for planning plus administration during each program year to an amount no greater than 20 percent of the sum of its entitlement grant made for that program year (if any) plus the program income received by the recipient and its subrecipients (if any) during that program year.

    Granted by: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: August 25, 2015.

    Reason Waived: HUD determined that better planning would increase the pace of the city's recovery and ensure that financial resources such as CDBG-DR funding will be used effectively. By granting the city's request to waive the requirements at § 570.200(g) the city would be able to carry out specific planning activities that would have a more immediate impact on the disaster-affected areas. In addition, the focus on the use of the CDBG funds for pre-development costs is consistent with the Federal Government's Build America initiative, a component of which is encouraging grantees to use CDBG funds to promote infrastructure development.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director of Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    II. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Housing

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Cooper Road Plaza Apartments, FHA Project Number 064-35418, Shreveport, LA. Post 525 Cooper Road Plaza, Incorporated (owner) seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loans on the subject project.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: July 2, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 20 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: Kimberly Britt, Account Executive, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6178, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-7576.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Knights of St. John, FHA Project Number 083-35017T, Louisville, KY; KSJ Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky (Owner) seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan on the project.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b)(1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: July 17, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 20 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: Marilynne Hutchins, Account Executive, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4323.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Smith Tower, FHA Project Number: 126-SH009, Vancouver, WA; Mid-Columbia Manor, Incorporated seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b)(1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states, “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: July 28, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 20 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: Kimberly Britt, Account Executive, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-7576.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Canterbury House, FHA Project Number 0540SH001, Charleston, SC; Episcopal Diocesan Housing, Incorporated seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b)(1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states, “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: July 28, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 20 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: Frank Tolliver, Account Executive, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-3821.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995).

    Project/Activity: Berrien Homes is a 160-unit project located in Benton Harbor, MI (FHA-023-071N1) that is being purchased by Berrien Homes Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership. The project consists of 15 one-bedroom units, 45 two-bedroom units, 60 three-bedroom units, and 40 four-bedroom units. The 30 year mortgage was insured pursuant to FHA 223(a)(7) which was a refinance of Section 236 of the National Housing Act and was endorsed on August 27, 2010, in the amount of $455,400 at 6.25 percent interest. The Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan was awarded in 1987 in the amount of $2,964,600 with 1 percent non-compounding annual interest. As of December 2014, the accrued interest was $796,546. The 2010 Mark to Market (M2M) transaction subordinated the Flexible Subsidy Note to the FHA Insured first mortgage, the HUD-held Mortgage Restructuring Note and the Green Retrofit Loan, and made it due and payable upon a sale of the Property or the prepayment of the M2M originated debt. The purchaser requested the re-subordination of the Flexible Subsidy Loan for a new 30-year term to facilitate the transaction.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b)(1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project (Transfer of Physical Assets (TPA)) if the Secretary so requires at the time of approval of the TPA.”.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: August 13, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan to allow the much needed preservation and moderate rehabilitation of the project. The project will be preserved as an affordable housing resource of Benton Harbor, MI.

    Contact: Patricia M. Burke, Acting Branch Chief, Office of Recapitalization, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6230, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-3460.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Tubman Towers, FHA Project No. 043-35034T, Springfield, Ohio; Lutheran Social Services of Central Ohio Tubman Towers seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states, “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: August 14, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan when it became due upon the project's mortgage maturity. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 35 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: James Wyatt, Account Executive, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6172, Washington DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2519.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Oak Creek Alzheimer & Dementia Care Center (FHA No. 121-22178) is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 “Bathroom” of FHA's regulations. The project is located in Castro Valley, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates in a board and care home or assisted living facility that the not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: June 4, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 9.5: 1. The project meets the State of California's licensing requirements for bathing and toileting facilities.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Operations Manager, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(b)(2).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Substantial Rehabilitation Defined. Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) of Montgomery County, Maryland.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(b)(2) defines substantial rehabilitation as any combination of covered work to the existing facilities of a project that aggregates to at least 15 percent of project's value after the rehabilitation and that results in material improvement of the project's economic life, livability, marketability, and profitability. Covered work includes replacement, alteration and/or modernization of building spaces, long-lived building or mechanical system components, or project facilities. The following changes apply to both Level I and II Housing Finance Agencies Definition of Substantial Rehabilitation (S/R) revised as: work that exceeds either: a) $15,000 times the high cost factor “as adjusted by HUD for inflation”, or b) replacement of two or more building systems. 'Replacement' is when cost of replacement work exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacing the entire system. The base limit is revised to $15,000 per unit for 2015, and will be adjusted annually based on the percentage change published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or other inflation cost index published by HUD. This is consistent with proposed changes in MAP Guide.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: August 26, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waiver is consistent with changes Multifamily is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(b)(2).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Substantial Rehabilitation Defined. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA).

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(b)(2) defines substantial rehabilitation as any combination of covered work to the existing facilities of a project that aggregates to at least 15 percent of project's value after the rehabilitation and that results in material improvement of the project's economic life, livability, marketability, and profitability. Covered work includes replacement, alteration and/or modernization of building spaces, long-lived building or mechanical system components, or project facilities. The following changes apply to both Level I and II Housing Finance Agencies Definition of Substantial Rehabilitation (S/R) revised as: work that exceeds either: a) $15,000 times the high cost factor “as adjusted by HUD for inflation”, or b) replacement of two or more building systems. 'Replacement' is when cost of replacement work exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacing the entire system. The base limit is revised to $15,000 per unit for 2015, and will be adjusted annually based on the percentage change published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or other inflation cost index published by HUD. This is consistent with proposed changes in MAP Guide.

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: September 22, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waivers are consistent with changes Multifamily is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Equity Take-Outs. Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) of Montgomery County, Maryland

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(c)(2) allows existing projects to be refinanced if certain criteria are met. If the property is subject to an HFA financed loan to be refinanced and such refinancing will result in the preservation of affordable housing, refinancing of these properties is permissible if project occupancy is not less than 93 percent (to include consideration of rent in arrears), based on the average occupancy in the project over the most recent 12 months, and the mortgage does not exceed an amount supportable by the lower of the unit rents being collected under the rental assistance agreement or the unit rents being collected at unassisted projects in the market area that are similar in amenities and location to the project for which insurance is being requested. The HUD-insured mortgage may not exceed the sum of the existing indebtedness, cost of refinancing, the cost of repairs and reasonable transaction costs as determined by the Commissioner. If a loan to be refinanced has been in default within the 12 months prior to application for refinancing, the HFA must assume not less than 50 percent of the risk. Equity take-outs for existing projects (refinance transactions) permit the insured mortgage to exceed the sum of the total cost of acquisition, cost of financing, cost of repairs, and reasonable transaction costs or “equity take-outs” in refinances of HFA-financed projects and those outside of HFA's portfolio if the result is preservation with the following conditions: (1) Occupancy is no less than 93 percent for previous 12 months; (2) no defaults in the last 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced; (3) a 20 year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the 542(c) statutory definition; (4) a Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) must be performed and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and (5) for projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts, the Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20 year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.), and existing and post-refinance HAP residual receipts are set aside to be used to reduce future HAP payments.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: August 26, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waiver is consistent with changes Multifamily is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Equity Take-Outs. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA).

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(c)(2) allows existing projects to be refinanced if certain criteria are met. If the property is subject to an HFA financed loan to be refinanced and such refinancing will result in the preservation of affordable housing, refinancing of these properties is permissible if project occupancy is not less than 93 percent (to include consideration of rent in arrears), based on the average occupancy in the project over the most recent 12 months, and the mortgage does not exceed an amount supportable by the lower of the unit rents being collected under the rental assistance agreement or the unit rents being collected at unassisted projects in the market area that are similar in amenities and location to the project for which insurance is being requested. The HUD-insured mortgage may not exceed the sum of the existing indebtedness, cost of refinancing, the cost of repairs and reasonable transaction costs as determined by the Commissioner. If a loan to be refinanced has been in default within the 12 months prior to application for refinancing, the HFA must assume not less than 50 percent of the risk. Equity take-outs for existing projects (refinance transactions) permit the insured mortgage to exceed the sum of the total cost of acquisition, cost of financing, cost of repairs, and reasonable transaction costs or “equity take-outs” in refinances of HFA-financed projects and those outside of HFA's portfolio if the result is preservation with the following conditions: (1) Occupancy is no less than 93% for previous 12 months; (2) no defaults in the last 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced; (3) a 20 year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the 542(c) statutory definition; (4) a Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) must be performed and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and (5) for projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts, the Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20 year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.), and existing and post-refinance HAP residual receipts are set aside to be used to reduce future HAP payments.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: September 22, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waiver is consistent with changes Multifamily is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(d).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Underwriting of Projects with Section 8 HAP Contracts. Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) of Montgomery County, Maryland

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(d) allows projects receiving project-based assistance under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 or other rental subsidies to be incurred only if the mortgage does not exceed an amount supportable by the lower of the unit rents being or to be collected under the rental assistance agreement or the unit rents being collected at unassisted projects in the market that are similar in amenities and location to the project. For refinancing of Section 202 projects, and for Public Housing Authority (PHA) projects converting to Section 8 through RAD, the Department permitted HOC to underwrite the financing using current or to be adjusted project-based Section 8 assisted rents, even though they exceed the market rates. This is consistent with HUD Housing Notice 04-21, “Amendments to Notice 02-16: Underwriting Guidelines for Refinancing of Section 202, and Section 202/8 Direct Loan Repayments”, which grants authority only to those lenders refinancing with mortgage programs under the National Housing Act.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: September 22, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waiver is consistent with changes Multifamily is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(d).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Underwriting of Projects with Section 8 HAP Contracts. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA).

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(d) allows projects receiving project-based assistance under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 or other rental subsidies to be incurred only if the mortgage does not exceed an amount supportable by the lower of the unit rents being or to be collected under the rental assistance agreement or the unit rents being collected at unassisted projects in the market that are similar in amenities and location to the project. For refinancing of Section 202 projects, and for Public Housing Authority (PHA) projects converting to Section 8 through RAD, the Department permitted MHFA to underwrite the financing using current or to be adjusted project-based Section 8 assisted rents, even though they exceed the market rates. This is consistent with HUD Housing Notice 04-21, “Amendments to Notice 02-16: Underwriting Guidelines for Refinancing of Section 202, and Section 202/8 Direct Loan Repayments”, which grants authority only to those lenders refinancing with mortgage programs under the National Housing Act.

    Granted by: Edward T. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: September 22, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waiver is consistent with changes Multifamily is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 266.620(e).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Termination of Mortgage Insurance. Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) of Mont