| Page Range | 79459-79653 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 79615 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 80 FR 79476 - Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing Benefits | |
| 80 FR 79564 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 80 FR 79567 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 80 FR 79569 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 80 FR 79562 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 80 FR 79558 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, Preliminary Partial Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 80 FR 79490 - United States Standards for Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice | |
| 80 FR 79528 - Implementing Programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act | |
| 80 FR 79557 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79650 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-BNSF Railway Company | |
| 80 FR 79558 - Approval of Subzone Status Haier America Trading, LLC Olive Branch, Mississippi | |
| 80 FR 79561 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 80 FR 79581 - Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas, To Export Compressed Natural Gas, and To Vacate Authority During October 2015 | |
| 80 FR 79472 - Amendment of Restricted Areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935; Cape Canaveral, FL | |
| 80 FR 79649 - Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Issuing or Modifying Launch Licenses for Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) Falcon Launch Vehicle Landings at Landing Complex-1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida | |
| 80 FR 79649 - Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 79651 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 6252 | |
| 80 FR 79652 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 990-W | |
| 80 FR 79651 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1099-K | |
| 80 FR 79605 - Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching Program | |
| 80 FR 79594 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Start-Up Option License: Potent and Selective Analogues of Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof | |
| 80 FR 79459 - Donation of Foods for Use in the United States, Its Territories and Possessions and Areas Under Its Jurisdiction | |
| 80 FR 79591 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 79459 - Law Enforcement Authorities | |
| 80 FR 79459 - Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools | |
| 80 FR 79477 - Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting Requirements for Barges Loaded With Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard District; Expiration of Stay (Suspension) and Administrative Changes | |
| 80 FR 79459 - Child and Adult Care Food Program | |
| 80 FR 79480 - Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT. | |
| 80 FR 79586 - Alliance Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference | |
| 80 FR 79588 - Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 80 FR 79584 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725K); Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79586 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 79586 - UGI Sunbury, LLC; Revised Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Sunbury Pipeline Project | |
| 80 FR 79588 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Jacksonville Expansion Project | |
| 80 FR 79584 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 79586 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 79587 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 79459 - Inspection of Eggs (Egg Products Inspection Act) | |
| 80 FR 79460 - Labeling, Marking Devices, and Containers | |
| 80 FR 79460 - Regulations Under the Packers and Stockyards Act | |
| 80 FR 79460 - Adjustment of Status to That of Person Admitted for Permanent Residence | |
| 80 FR 79459 - Change of Nonimmigrant Classification | |
| 80 FR 79572 - Digital Economy Board of Advisors, Extension of Nomination Deadline | |
| 80 FR 79614 - Labor Certification Process for the Temporary Employment of Aliens in Agriculture in the United States: 2016 Adverse Effect Wage Rates | |
| 80 FR 79460 - Savings Associations-Operations | |
| 80 FR 79461 - Advances | |
| 80 FR 79609 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Wyoming and Nebraska | |
| 80 FR 79614 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree | |
| 80 FR 79485 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer | |
| 80 FR 79606 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake | |
| 80 FR 79522 - National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Request for Comment | |
| 80 FR 79473 - Crowdfunding; Correction | |
| 80 FR 79610 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0080 | |
| 80 FR 79611 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0057 | |
| 80 FR 79609 - Receipt of an Incidental Take Permit Application for Participation in the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma | |
| 80 FR 79613 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification To Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 79460 - Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions | |
| 80 FR 79483 - Payment of Emergency Medication by VA | |
| 80 FR 79594 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 79596 - Submission for OMB review; 30-Day Comment Request; Collection of Customer Service, Demographic, and Smoking/Tobacco Use Information From the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) Clients (NCI) | |
| 80 FR 79583 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 79581 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
| 80 FR 79580 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Ontario Power Generation, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 79650 - National Freight Advisory Committee: Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 79574 - Applications for New Awards; Talent Search Program | |
| 80 FR 79612 - Certain Arrowheads With Deploying Blades and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor; Institution of Investigation | |
| 80 FR 79611 - Large Residential Washers From China; Institution of an Antidumping Duty investigation and Scheduling of a Preliminary Phase Investigation | |
| 80 FR 79638 - Third Avenue Trust and Third Avenue Management LLC; Notice of Application and Temporary Order | |
| 80 FR 79572 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 80 FR 79627 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 80 FR 79628 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 80 FR 79628 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 80 FR 79628 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 80 FR 79648 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 79647 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 79555 - Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information: Forms Pertaining to the Peer Preview of ARS Research Projects | |
| 80 FR 79557 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 80 FR 79597 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79599 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79600 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79615 - Request for Comments on Category Management Policy 16-1: Improving the Acquisition and Management of Common Information Technology: Software Licensing | |
| 80 FR 79571 - Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology | |
| 80 FR 79530 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Public Notice Regarding Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction | |
| 80 FR 79589 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 79644 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79642 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Cabinet Trading Pilot Program | |
| 80 FR 79632 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Merge FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc. Into and With FINRA Regulation, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 79640 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Deleting Rule 410B-Equities Governing Reporting Requirements for Off-Exchange Transactions | |
| 80 FR 79645 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending Its Program That Allows Transactions To Take Place at a Price That Is Below $1 Per Option Contract Until January 5, 2017 | |
| 80 FR 79630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending Its Program That Allows Transactions to Take Place at a Price That Is Below $1 Per Option Contract Until January 5, 2017 | |
| 80 FR 79644 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Deleting Rule 410B Governing Reporting Requirements for Off-Exchange Transactions | |
| 80 FR 79629 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 13.3, Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer Materials; Proxy Voting | |
| 80 FR 79636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 13.3, Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer Materials; Proxy Voting | |
| 80 FR 79640 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Order Exposure | |
| 80 FR 79597 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 79595 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 79595 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 79484 - Review of the Emergency Alert System | |
| 80 FR 79647 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 79653 - Pricing for the 2016 Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Program | |
| 80 FR 79652 - Pricing for the 2016 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service Commemorative Coin Program | |
| 80 FR 79493 - General and Plastic Surgery Devices: Restricted Sale, Distribution, and Use of Sunlamp Products | |
| 80 FR 79505 - Sunlamp Products; Proposed Amendment to Performance Standard | |
| 80 FR 79591 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 79592 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 79593 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (BSC, NCIPC) | |
| 80 FR 79592 - Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW) | |
| 80 FR 79590 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
| 80 FR 79607 - Endangered Species; Wild Bird Conservation; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 80 FR 79626 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 79625 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 79627 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 79653 - Allowance for Private Purchase of an Outer Burial Receptacle (or Grave Liner) in Lieu of a Government-Furnished Grave Liner for Use in a VA National Cemetery | |
| 80 FR 79531 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Small Business Impacts of Motor Vehicle Safety | |
| 80 FR 79593 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 79616 - Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 | |
| 80 FR 79474 - New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds; Bacitracin Methylenedisalicylate | |
| 80 FR 79533 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day and 12-Month Findings on a Petition To List the Miami Tiger Beetle as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle | |
| 80 FR 79491 - Proposed Revisions to the FDIC's Rules and Regulations Requiring the Registration of Securities Transfer Agents | |
| 80 FR 79526 - Prohibition of the Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property | |
| 80 FR 79601 - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program | |
| 80 FR 79487 - Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection-DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information, System of Records | |
| 80 FR 79648 - Decision To Maintain Presidential Permit for the Vantage Pipeline Border Facilities in Divide County, North Dakota Following Change in Ownership | |
| 80 FR 79466 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
| 80 FR 79617 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 80 FR 79469 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 79461 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 53 to 209, revised as of January 1, 2015, make the following corrections:
(h) * * * These required data elements will be specified by FNS. Contingent upon new funding to support this purpose, FNS will also require each local educational agency to collect and report the number of students who were terminated as a result of verification but who were reinstated as of February 15th. The first report containing this data element would be required in the school year beginning July 1, 2005 and each school year thereafter. State agencies may develop paper or electronic reporting forms to collect this data from local educational agencies, as long as all required data elements are collected from each local educational agency. Local educational agencies shall retain copies of the information reported under this section and all supporting documents for a minimum of 3 years. All verified applications must be readily retrievable on an individual school basis and include all documents submitted by the household for the purpose of confirming eligibility, reproductions of those documents, or annotations made by the determining official which indicate which documents were submitted by the household and the date of submission. All relevant correspondence between the households selected for verification and the school or local educational agency must be retained. Local educational agencies are encouraged to collect and report any or all verification data elements before the required dates.
In Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 to End, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 218, make the following changes:
(c) * * *
(d) For purposes of this section, an “office” of an association means any premises used by the association that are identified to the public through advertising or signage using the association's name, trade name, or logo.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) is amending Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) to revise the rate of interest paid on balances maintained to satisfy reserve balance requirements (“IORR”) and the rate of interest paid on excess balances (“IOER”) maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of eligible institutions. The final amendments specify that IORR is 0.50 percent and IOER is 0.50 percent, a 0.25 percentage point increase from their prior levels. The amendments are intended to enhance the role of such rates of interest in moving the Federal funds rate into the target range established by the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC” or “Committee”).
The amendments to part 204 (Regulation D) are effective December 22, 2015. The IORR and IOER rate changes were applicable on December 17, 2015, as specified in 12 CFR 204.10(b)(5), as amended.
Clinton N. Chen, Attorney (202-452-3952), or Stephanie Martin, Associate General Counsel (202-452-3198), Legal Division, or Thomas R. Keating, Financial Analyst (202-973-7401), or Laura Lipscomb, Section Chief (202-973-7964), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202-263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.
For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“the Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Regulation D, which implements section 19 of the Act, requires that a depository institution meet reserve requirements by holding cash in its vault, or if vault cash is insufficient, by maintaining a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”).
The Board is amending § 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to specify that IORR is 0.50 percent and IOER is 0.50 percent. This 0.25 percentage point increase in the IORR and IOER was associated with an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate, from a target range of 0 to
The Committee judges that there has been considerable improvement in labor market conditions this year, and it is reasonably confident that inflation will rise, over the medium term, to its 2 percent objective. Given the economic outlook, and recognizing the time it takes for policy actions to affect future economic outcomes, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to
A Federal Reserve Implementation note released simultaneously with the announcement indicated that:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously to raise the interest rate paid on required and excess reserve balances to 0.50 percent, effective December 17, 2015.
As a result, section 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D has been amended to change IORR to 0.50 percent and IOER to 0.50 percent.
The Board has determined that delaying implementation of the changes in the rates of interest to be paid in order to allow notice and public comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the Board has found good cause to not follow the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation. The Board's revisions to these rates were taken with a view to accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country. Notice and public participation would prevent the Board's action from being effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest. A delay would permit speculators or others to reap unfair profits and could provoke other consequences contrary to the public interest. Seeking notice and comment on the rate changes would not aid the persons affected and would otherwise serve no useful purpose. For these same reasons, the Board also has found good cause not to provide 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.
Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 204 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 461, 601, 611, and 3105.
(b) * * *
(5) The rates for IORR and IOER are:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-200PF airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a forward-most cam latch of the forward center cam latch pair on a main cargo door (MCD) broke during flight. This AD requires doing a general visual inspection for broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts; torqueing the cross bolts in the latch pins; measuring the extension of
This AD is effective January 26, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 26, 2016.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kimberly DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6495; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-200PF airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013), we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, dated March 9, 2010, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in the NPRM. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, clarifies the inspection conditions and the on-condition actions for certain conditions. Certain inspections of the cam latches and latch pins were changed from detailed inspections to general visual inspections. Also, a detailed inspection of mating parts and immediately adjacent cam latches and latch pins for any cracks, or any gouges in critical areas was added to certain on-condition actions specified in the service information.
Also, the on-condition action for latch pin extensions that are between 0.84 and 0.89 inch or between 0.91 and 0.94 inch was changed. For those latch pins, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, dated March 9, 2010, specifies repetitive detailed inspections and certain other specified actions. However, for those latch pins, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, specifies replacement of the discrepant latch pin, a detailed inspection, and certain other specified actions (which are the same on-condition actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, dated March 9, 2010, for latch pin extensions that are less than 0.84 inch or greater than 0.94 inch).
We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (j)(1), and (j)(2) of this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. We have also added new paragraph (k) of this AD to give credit for doing actions before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, dated March 9, 2010. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
In addition, since certain inspections and conditions were revised in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, we have revised the description of the actions in this AD to correspond with the terminology in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. As a result, certain paragraphs in the proposed AD (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013) have been rearranged and the corresponding paragraph identifiers have been redesignated in this AD, as listed in the following table:
We have also revised the Costs of Compliance paragraph in this final rule to reflect the work-hours in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments
FedEx stated that it would withhold its comments because the FedEx Express Model 757 fleet was converted to freighters under ST Aerospace Mobile Engineering Inc. Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST03562AT (
We acknowledge FedEx's comment. As specified in paragraph (c) of this AD, this AD applies to Model 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-200PF airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. The effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, identifies the affected airplanes by variable number.
Boeing requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013) be rewritten to clarify the relative severity of the inspection conditions and the appropriate actions needed. Boeing stated that the actions in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD should progress from the most serious condition findings to the least serious findings while providing logical evaluation paths for the conditions.
We agree that the progression of the inspection conditions and their appropriate related investigative and corrective actions should correspond with what is described in the referenced service information. As stated previously, we have revised the terminology in this final rule to match the actions (
European Air Transport Leipzig GmbH/DHL Air Ltd. (EATL/DHL) requested that we delay issuing the AD until applicable service information is revised. EATL/DHL stated that despite accomplishing the re-rigging using the current service information, it continues to find wear on the cam latches during post-rigging inspections, and has had to replace a total of 69 cam latches and 17 latch pins in one year. As a result, EATL/DHL stated that the financial impact is higher than the inspection costs only.
EATL/DHL stated that a rigging check of the cam hook mechanism must be included in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091 to address the identified unsafe condition. EATL/DHL stated that unintended wear of the cam latches can be avoided only by first re-rigging the cam hook mechanism to either side of the door to ensure that the cam latches and latch pins are involved only in the door-locking process and not in the door-closing process. EATL/DHL stated that it has been adjusting the cam hook mechanism using the cam hook adjustment procedure in the applicable airplane maintenance manual (AMM), but that it is difficult to attain the tolerances stated in that AMM procedure. EATL/DHL concluded that the AMM procedure must be clarified and simplified.
We disagree with delaying this AD until revised service information that includes a new AMM procedure is available. We understand that there could be additional root causes and procedures that need to be clarified if operators, experienced with accomplishing the current procedures, determine that there are more effective means of accomplishing the repairs. However, we disagree with delaying issuance of this final rule until service information containing revised re-rigging procedures becomes available. We have determined that the actions specified in this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, are an effective means of accomplishing the repairs. Accomplishing the actions required by this AD adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition. We have determined that to delay this final rule would be inappropriate, because inspections and repairs to the MCD cam latches are needed to reduce the risk of the identified unsafe condition. Operators should continue to communicate any findings resulting from failures, as well as deficiencies in maintenance documentation, to Boeing so that inspection and repair procedures can be reviewed and revised as necessary. Operators can always request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD if alternative re-rigging procedures are available and address the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
UPS requested that we revise paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of the proposed AD (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013) to remove all references to service information containing compliance times stated in calendar days. UPS stated that crack initiation and subsequent propagation is dependent on flight cycles due to pressurization and/or flight loads, and not to MCDs sitting idle, so the use of calendar days is irrelevant. UPS stated that removing calendar days should have no negative effect on safety, and that a calendar-based compliance schedule merely imposes economic, maintenance, and scheduling burdens. UPS also questioned the need for repetitive inspections of the MCD cam latches, and stated that it does not concur with the finding that improper door rigging is the root cause of failure. UPS stated that the only identified direct cause of cam latch failure is a sheared cross bolt that migrated into the cam envelope, and that initial inspections would identify cases of sheared cross bolts, migrated pins, corrosion, lip deformation, etc. UPS asked what changes occur to the system that warrant reinspection if the latch system far exceeds 10
We disagree with the request to remove all compliance times stated in calendar days from this final rule or to remove the repetitive inspections because the damage was determined to have been brought on by a poorly rigged MCD and the torque impact from the cam latch rotation during latching and unlatching operations. Therefore, it is possible for the MCD system to be changed after a failed latch has been repaired.
For this reason, a calendar-based inspection interval has been calculated along with the flight cycle interval, as specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. Paragraph (g) of this AD requires compliance within the times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014.
However, paragraph (h) of this AD requires compliance within the times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, which specifies repetitive intervals in flight cycles only.
Specific changes in compliance time or inspection intervals may be requested by submitting a request for approval of an AMOC according to the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
UPS requested that if calendar-based compliance times are retained, for airplanes that had successfully passed the initial detailed inspections of the cam latches and latch pins, torqued the cross bolts, and measured the latch pin extension, the next inspection be extended by 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months.
We disagree with extending the compliance times of this AD. However, we note that certain inspections required by this AD are at the intervals specified by the commenter. In developing an appropriate compliance time for these actions, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification and the normal scheduled maintenance times for most affected operators. In consideration of these items, we have determined that the repetitive intervals specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, will ensure an acceptable level of safety. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.
UPS requested that we revise the proposed AD (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013) to allow an airplane having a discrepant cam/pin to be ferried to a location where the airplane can be modified. UPS stated that, since significant loads are the result of the pressurization and/or flight loads, and not the result of whether the door is closed, an airplane with findings needs to be ferried to a maintenance facility for repair, especially in view of the given proposed time frames for the inspection.
We agree that special flight permits should be allowed because the inspection intervals do not necessarily correspond to scheduled maintenance intervals, and allowance should be made for operators to ferry an airplane to a location where repairs can be made without the need to request a special flight permit. Unpressurized flight does not subject the airplane to possible rapid decompression of the airplane should the damaged cam latch, latch pin, or latch pin cross bolt fail, resulting in loss of the MCD during flight.
However, it is not necessary to revise this final rule because special flight permits are already allowed. Unless otherwise specified in the AD, special flight permits are currently allowed as described in section 21.197 and section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided no passengers are onboard. We do not find it necessary to change the final rule in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously—and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 21576, April 11, 2013).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a general visual inspection for broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts; torqueing the cross bolts in the latch pins; measuring the extension of the latch pins; replacing all alloy steel cross bolts through the latch pins with CRES cross bolts; doing a general visual inspection of all cam latches for lip deformation; doing a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or magnetic particle inspection of cam latch 1 and cam latch 2 for cracks and replacing all cracked or broken parts; checking the rig of the MCD and re-rigging as applicable; and doing related investigative and corrective actions. The service information also describes doing repetitive inspections for certain conditions specified in the service information, which end after the MCD rigging is done as specified in the service information. The service information also describes procedures for doing MCD post-rigging inspections and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related investigative actions and certain replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
We also have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 26, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-200PF airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report that a forward-most cam latch on the forward center cam latch pair on a main cargo door (MCD) broke during flight. We are issuing to detect and correct cracked or damaged cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the MCD, and result in potential loss of the cargo door and rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts; torque the cross bolts in the latch pins; measure the extension of the latch pins; replace all alloy steel cross bolts through the latch pins with corrosion resistant steel (CRES) cross bolts; do a general visual inspection of all cam latches for lip deformation; do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or magnetic particle inspection of cam latch 1 and cam latch 2 for cracks and replace all cracked or broken parts; check the rig of the MCD and re-rig as applicable; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; and thereafter do all applicable repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014. Do all applicable repetitive inspections at the applicable time and intervals specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, until the rig of the MCD has been checked in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014.
(1) For Condition 2 as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014: Do repetitive general visual inspections for broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts.
(2) For Condition 3 as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014: Repetitive general visual inspections for broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts and repetitive detailed inspections of the discrepant cam latch and mating latch pin for any cracks, or gouges in critical areas.
(3) For Condition 4 as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014: Repetitive general visual inspections for broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts; repetitive detailed inspections of the cam latches and latch pins for any cracks, or any gouges in critical areas; and, unless replaced with new or reworked parts, repetitive HFEC or magnetic particle
At the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014: Do general visual inspections for any broken or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts; a detailed inspection of the cam latches and latch pins for any cracks, or any gouges in critical areas; and an HFEC or magnetic particle inspection of cam latch 1 and cam latch 2 for cracks; and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014; except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an alloy steel bolt as a cross bolt through any latch pin fitting assembly in the lower sill of the MCD on any airplane.
The following exceptions apply in this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, specifies a compliance time after the original issue date of that service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were done before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, dated March 9, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kimberly DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6495; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0091, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C1, AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters with an energy absorbing seat (seat). This AD requires inspecting for the presence of labels that prohibit stowing anything under the seat. If a label is missing or not clearly visible to each occupant, we require installing a label. This AD was prompted by the discovery that required labels had not been systematically installed. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent objects from being stowed under the seat as these objects could reduce the energy-absorbing function of the seat, resulting in injury to the seat occupants during an accident.
This AD is effective January 26, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of January 26, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On July 14, 2015, at 80 FR 40947, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2014-0204, dated September 11, 2014, and corrected September 12, 2014, by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C1, AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. EASA advises that during certification of an energy absorbing seat with a new part number, the labels that require keeping the space under the seat free of any object were not systematically installed. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could prompt occupants to stow objects under an energy absorbing seat, which would reduce the effectiveness of the seat and the occupants' chance of surviving an accident. The EASA AD consequently requires a one-time inspection for the presence of labels and, if they are missing or unreadable, making and installing labels prohibiting the placing of an object under an energy absorbing seat.
Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated and a group email address has been established for requesting an FAA Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) for a helicopter of foreign design. Therefore, we have revised the physical address throughout the AD and the email address for requesting an AMOC.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 40947, July 14, 2015).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by France and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
Airbus Helicopters issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-01.00.85 for Model AS332C1, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters; ASB No. AS365-01.00.66 for Model AS-365N2 and AS 365 N3 helicopters; ASB No. EC155-04A013 for EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters; and ASB No. EC225-04A012 for Model EC225LP helicopters. All ASBs are Revision 0 and dated August 26, 2014. The ASBs state that during certification of an energy absorbing seat with a new part number, it was observed that the label, which indicates that the space under the seats must remain free of objects, was not systematically installed. Objects stowed under these seats reduce the energy absorbing function and thus jeopardize the occupant's survival in the event of a crash, the ASBs state. Pending a definitive solution, Airbus Helicopters calls for affixing a label that states that nothing can be stored under the seats.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 52 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that the inspection for the presence of a label takes a quarter work-hour for a labor cost of about $21. The cost of parts and time for installing a label are minimal, for a total cost of $21 per helicopter and $1,092 for the U.S. fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C1, AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters with an energy absorbing seat (seat) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD, certificated in any category.
“xx” can be any two alphanumeric characters and “()” can be any number of alphanumeric characters.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as an object stowed under an energy absorbing seat. This condition could reduce the efficiency of the energy-absorbing function of the seat, resulting in injury to the seat occupants during an accident.
This AD becomes effective January 26, 2016.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 110 hours time in service:
(1) For Model AS332C1, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters:
(i) Inspect the cabin and cockpit for labels, placards, or markings that prohibit stowing anything under the seats in the locations shown in the figure in the Appendix of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-01.00.85 (ASB AS332-01.00.85) or No. EC225-04A012 (ASB EC225-04A012), both Revision 0 and dated August 26, 2014, as applicable for your model helicopter.
(ii) If a label, placard, or marking is not located in every location depicted in the figure in the Appendix or is not visible and legible to every occupant, before further flight, install a placard in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of ASB AS332-01.00.85 or ASB EC225-04A012, as applicable for your model helicopter.
(2) For Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters:
(i) Inspect each seat leg in the cabin and cockpit for labels, placards, or markings that prohibit stowing anything under the seats.
(ii) If a label, placard, or marking does not exist on one leg of each seat or is not visible and legible, before further flight, install a placard in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., and the Appendix of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-01.00.66 or No. EC155-04A013, both Revision 0 and dated August 26, 2014, as applicable for your model helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0204, dated September 11, 2014, and corrected September 12, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 1100, Placards and Markings.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-01.00.85, Revision 0, dated August 26, 2014.
(ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC225-04A012, Revision 0, dated August 26, 2014.
(iii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-01.00.66, Revision 0, dated August 26, 2014.
(iv) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC155-04A013, Revision 0, dated August 26, 2014.
(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks at certain frames of the forward cargo door. This AD requires a detailed inspection for cracking of certain forward cargo doors, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain frames, which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door.
This AD becomes effective January 26, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 26, 2016.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0228, dated October 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An A330 aeroplane operator reported recently cases of crack findings on two different aeroplanes, at frame 20A and at frame 20B close to beam 3 of the forward cargo door. The first finding was detected during scheduled maintenance, while the second one was found during an inspection prompted by the first finding. Subsequent analyses of these cracks identified that the first crack initiated at frame 20B, which is the first primary load path, leading to excessive loads at frame 20A and consequent cracking. Nevertheless, on the other aeroplane, a crack was detected on frame 20A only. Rupture of both frames 20A and 20B could lead to frame 21 failure after a limited number of flight cycles (FC).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may potentially result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door, which could ultimately jeopardise the aeroplane's safe flight.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14 to provide instructions for a one-time inspection of frames 20A, 20B and 21 in the area of beam 3, until the half pitch between beam 2 and beam 3.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the Part Number (P/N) of the affected forward cargo doors, a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of each affected door and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [contacting Airbus].
This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.
Required actions also include sending inspection results to Airbus. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
On page 1 of Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014, at section “2. Referenced Documentation,” “Ref. 5” specifies page block “PB.801,” which is incorrect. This page block should be “PB.401” instead. We have added new paragraph (k) to this AD to account for this correction, and have redesignated subsequent paragraphs.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
American Airlines (AA) requested that we revise the proposed AD (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) by swapping the part numbers listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(1)(x) of the proposed AD to maintain alphanumeric order. American Airlines reasoned that the flow of the list is confusing.
We agree to revise paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(1)(x) of this AD for the reasons requested by American Airlines.
AA asked whether a root cause has been determined that justifies the proposed inspection threshold. AA noted that paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) proposed that inspections on all affected doors be completed within 200 flight cycles from the effective date of the AD. AA further noted from Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30,
We infer that AA considers the proposed compliance times to be unjustifiably short. We disagree to revise the compliance times in this AD. At the time of issuance of EASA AD 2014-0228, dated October 20, 2014, it had been determined that fatigue calculations were showing low life factors at frame C20B. After a failure of frame C20B, the edge member C20A would be overloaded and could potentially fail within 800 flight cycles, according to damage tolerance calculations. The failure of the tow frame would be catastrophic. Therefore the decision was made to mandate a one-time inspection with a compliance time of within 200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, which corresponds to the compliance time specified in EASA AD 2014-0228, dated October 20, 2014. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.
AA requested that we revise paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) to allow credit for reporting that has already been accomplished before the effective date of this AD. AA explained that the proposed AD would require operators to submit a report within 30 days after the AD effective date if the inspection was done before the effective date of the AD. AA reasoned that this does not allow for credit to be taken for reports that were submitted in accordance with Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014, prior to the AD effective date. AA requested that paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD state, “[i]f the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, unless the inspection report was previously submitted.”
We agree to allow credit for reporting that has already been accomplished before the effective date of this AD. The compliance time in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD is within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Reports submitted before that compliance time, including those submitted before the effective date of this AD (as specified in paragraph (f) of this AD), are acceptable for compliance with paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.
Delta requested that we limit the applicability of the proposed AD to airplanes equipped with any of the forward cargo doors with the manufacturer part numbers (MPNs) listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of the proposed AD. Delta noted that paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the proposed AD would apply to the identified airplane models, unless Modification 202702 had been embodied in production on certain airplanes.
Delta stated it had requested clarification from Airbus about the relationship between the MPNs identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of the proposed AD and airplanes in the pre-Mod 50528 configuration, as specified in Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014. According to Delta, Airbus confirmed via Airbus Message 80036162, dated April 1, 2015, that because cargo doors are components and can be swapped during in-service life, Airbus had intentionally extended the affected airplanes for the required inspections to include pre-Mod 202702 airplanes that may have affected doors. Delta then reasoned that since operators can track the modification status only by the individual airplane, the applicability should be written to include the MPNs to ensure that operators understand which airplanes are affected by the AD.
We disagree with the request to limit the applicability of this AD (paragraph (c) of this AD) to airplanes having the MPNs identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD. The “Parts Installation Prohibition” specified in paragraph (j) of this AD applies to all airplanes identified in the paragraph (c) of this AD to ensure the affected MPNs are not installed on those airplanes. However, the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD is limited to airplanes having the affected MPNs. We have therefore made no changes to this AD in this regard.
Delta requested that we revise the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph in the NPRM (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) to state, “However, Airbus has confirmed that out of qty (260) affected MPN Fwd cargo doors inspected, all were reported with NIL [no findings] findings.” Delta agreed that there is no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need the corrective actions for inspection findings, but added that the compliance window of 200 flight cycles for the inspection is a fairly short compliance window and may likely need to be accomplished in a line environment. Delta expressed that it may be prudent to communicate to operators that out of a quantity of 260 forward cargo doors already inspected, there have been NIL findings (as noted in Airbus Message 80036162, dated April 1, 2015).
We agree with Delta's request and have revised the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph accordingly in this final rule.
Delta requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) to allow for a records review if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review. Delta reasoned that without this provision, the operators may consider a physical review of each forward cargo door to be required.
For the reason stated by Delta, we agree to allow for a review of airplane maintenance records to verify whether cargo doors with part numbers listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD are installed on the airplane. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 17000, March 31, 2015).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for and repair of cracking of certain forward cargo doors. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $7,565, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 32 work-hours and require parts costing $654,850, for a cost of $657,570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions. However, Airbus has confirmed that out of 260 affected MPN forward cargo doors already inspected, all were reported with NIL findings; therefore, we anticipate that few, if any, airplanes will require these follow-on actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective January 26, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 202702 has been embodied in production.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks at certain frames of the forward cargo door. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain frames, which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of an affected forward cargo door, having a part number identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD, at frames 20A, 20B, and 21 areas located above beam 3, from outside and inside, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to determine if an affected forward cargo door is installed provided that the part number of the forward cargo door can be conclusively determined from that review.
(i) F523-70500-000.
(ii) F523-70500-004.
(iii) F523-70500-006.
(iv) F523-70500-008.
(v) F523-70500-010.
(vi) F523-70500-012.
(vii) F523-70500-014.
(viii) F523-70550-000.
(ix) F523-70550-002.
(x) F523-70550-004.
(xi) F523-70550-008.
(xii) F523-70550-050.
(2) If any crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as a mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to Serge KIYMAZ, Structure Engineer, Structure Engineering—SEES1 CUSTOMER SERVICES, Phone: +33(0)5 82 05 10 33, Fax: +33(0)5 61 93 36 14, email:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, installation of a forward cargo door having any part number specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD is permitted on any airplane, provided that prior to installation, the door is inspected and, depending on the findings, corrected, in accordance with Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
On page 1 of Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014, at section “2. Referenced Documentation,” “Ref. 5” specifies page block “PB.801,” which is incorrect. This page block should be “PB.401” instead.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0228, dated October 20, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action updates the using agency information for restricted areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935; Cape Canaveral, FL. This is an administrative change to reflect the current organization tasked with using agency responsibilities for the restricted areas. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, time of designation or activities conducted within the restricted areas.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by updating the using agency name for restricted areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935; Cape Canaveral, FL, to Commander, 45th Space Wing, Patrick AFB, FL. The name change reflects the current organization assigned using agency responsibilities for the restricted areas. This is an administrative change that does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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.
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 5-6.5.d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the description of restricted areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935; Cape Canaveral, FL, to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, time of designation, or use of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the words “Using agency. Commander, 1st Range Operations Squadron, Cape Canaveral AFS, FL” and inserting in their place “Using agency. Commander, 45th Space Wing, Patrick AFB, FL.”
By removing the words “Using agency. Commander, 1st Range Operations Squadron, Cape Canaveral AFS, FL” and inserting in their place “Using agency. Commander, 45th Space Wing, Patrick AFB, FL.”
By removing the words “Using agency. Commander, 1st Range Operations Squadron, Cape Canaveral AFS, FL” and inserting in their place “Using agency. Commander, 45th Space Wing, Patrick AFB, FL.”
By removing the words “Using agency. Commander, 1st Range Operations Squadron, Cape Canaveral AFS, FL” and inserting in their place “Using agency. Commander, 45th Space Wing, Patrick AFB, FL.”
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published in the
Effective December 22, 2015.
Timothy White or Erin Galipeau, Division of Trading and Markets, at (202) 551-5550, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
In rule FR Doc. 2015-28220 published on November 16, 2015, (80 FR 71388) make the following correction:
On page 71388, in the first column, the
“
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Pharmgate LLC for the use of a Type A medicated article containing bacitracin methylenedisalicylate to manufacture Type B and Type C medicated feeds for chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, and feedlot cattle. This supplemental approval reflects FDA's effectiveness conclusions that relied on the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Drug Efficacy Study Group's evaluation of the effectiveness of this drug as well indications for use not subject to this review.
This rule is effective December 22, 2015.
Matthew Lucia, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-128), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0589, email:
In the
In response to that notice of opportunity for a hearing (NOOH), Pennfield Oil Co. (Pennfield), 14040 Industrial Rd., Omaha, NE 68144, filed a hearing request for its approved, non-DESI finalized NADA 141-137 for a bacitracin methylenedisalicylate Type A medicated article.
In March 2015, Pennfield transferred sponsorship of NADA 141-137 to Pharmgate LLC, 1015 Ashes Dr., Suite 102, Wilmington, NC 28405 (Pharmgate) (80 FR 13226, March 13, 2015). Subsequently, Pharmgate filed a supplement to NADA 141-137 for PENNITRACIN MD 50G (bacitracin Type A medicated article) with labeling conforming to the findings of effectiveness in the 2003 NOOH. In addition, the submitted labeling included indications for use approved by FDA that were not subject to DESI findings of effectiveness (34 FR 7906, May 20, 1969).
The supplemental NADA provides for use of a Type A medicated article containing bacitracin methylenedisalicylate to manufacture Type B and Type C medicated feeds for several production and therapeutic indications in broiler and replacement chickens, growing turkeys, growing pheasants, growing quail, and beef steers and heifers fed in confinement for slaughter. The supplemental NADA is approved as of October 6, 2015, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.76 to reflect the approval. Pharmgate, as successor to Pennfield, has since withdrawn the hearing request for NADA 141-137.
Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of any new safety or effectiveness data. Therefore, a freedom of information summary was not prepared.
The DESI evaluation was concerned only with the effectiveness of the drug products and use combinations. Nothing in this document constitutes a bar to further proceedings with respect to questions of safety of the subject drugs in treated animals or of the drugs or their metabolites in food products derived from treated animals.
Products that comply with FDA's findings of effectiveness are eligible for copying, as described in the “Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act; Eighth Policy Letter,” August 21, 1991 (56 FR 41561). Accordingly, sponsors may now obtain approval of abbreviated NADAs for this Type A medicated article.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
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.
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 part 558 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(2) Type A medicated article containing 50 grams bacitracin methylenedisalicylate per pound.
(b)
(1) No. 054771 for use of products in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(iii), (e)(1)(v) through (xiii), and (e)(1)(xv) of this section.
(2) No. 069254 for use of products in paragraph (a)(2) of this section as in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iv), (e)(1)(xiv), and (e)(1)(xvi) of this section.
(e) * * *
(1) It is used as follows:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the first quarter of 2016. The interest assumptions are used for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC. As discussed below, PBGC has published a separate final rule document dealing with interest assumptions under its regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans for January 2016.
Effective January 1, 2016.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly and are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. This final rule updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the first quarter (January through March) of 2016.
The first quarter 2016 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 2.82 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.95 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the fourth quarter of 2015, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), an increase of 0.36 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.03 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation of benefits under plans with valuation dates during the first quarter of 2016, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule; request for comments.
Through this interim rule, the Coast Guard is providing administrative changes to the existing reporting requirements under the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) applicable to barges loaded with certain dangerous cargoes on the inland rivers in the Eighth District area of responsibility. The current stay of reporting requirements under the RNA is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. This interim rule limits the reporting requirements in that rule for an interim period while also requesting comments before proposing or finalizing any long term or permanent revisions to the existing reporting requirements.
This interim rule is effective beginning January 1, 2016. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2016. See
The docket for this interim rule and request for comments, [USCG-2013-0760] is available at
For information about this document email the Coast Guard via Shelley R. Miller at
The reporting requirements under 33 CFR 165.830, “Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting Requirements for Barges Loaded with Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard District,” were initially suspended (“stayed”) in January 2011 due to the expiration of the contract for the Inland River Vessel Movement Center (IRVMC). The IRVMC was the Coast Guard office responsible for collecting the information required by the regulated navigation area (RNA) at § 165.830. Upon expiration of the contract for the IRVMC, the Coast Guard was not able to receive and process reports. Therefore, the suspension of reporting requirements was published in the
In January 2015 the Coast Guard published a final rule, titled Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System (80 FR 5282). This rule implemented new and updated Notices of Arrival (NOA) reporting requirements under 33 CFR 160 Subpart C, providing an exemption, at 33 CFR 160.204(a)(3), for any vessel required to report movements, its cargo, or the cargo in barges it is towing under 33 CFR 165.830 after December 31, 2015. This rule, which was initially proposed in 2008 before the RNA reporting requirements were suspended, relied on the existing reporting requirements at 33 CFR 165.830 to support the exemption. Starting on January 1, 2016, a vessel would only be eligible for the exemption if it is required to report its movements or cargo as specified in § 160.204(a)(3).
On November 24, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of intent (NOI) informing the public that the stay would expire on December 31, 2015, and that reporting would resume in a limited form (80 FR 73156). This rule makes changes to limit the suspended reporting requirements, which would otherwise come into effect in full on January 1, 2016.
Also relevant to this interim rule and request for comments is the portion of the January 2015 rule requiring that all vessels engaged in the movement of Certain Dangerous Cargos (CDC) have Class A Automatic Information System (AIS) beginning in March 2016, pending Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a collection of information associated with that regulatory requirement. These AIS requirements provided under 33 CFR 164.46, if enforced, may provide an alternative method of reporting that could potentially satisfy the requirements under 33 CFR 165.830 and
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule to limit the RNA reporting requirements that will come into effect after December 31 when the stay of § 165.830 expires. This rule is necessary to stay compliance with certain provisions of the existing rule, and to make administrative changes replacing the references to IRVMC, which is no longer operational. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231, the same authority providing for the initial establishment of the RNA.
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior opportunity to comment, pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule for several reasons. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this interim rule makes only administrative changes to the existing RNA regulation under 33 CFR 165.830, and does not propose or establish new restrictions or requirements. This interim rule merely stays compliance with portions of an existing requirement, allowing select existing provisions to resume upon expiration of a stay in effect through December 31, 2015 and makes the administrative changes necessary to redirect reporting from the IRVMC to the District. Additionally, publishing an NPRM was impracticable because of the relatively short time between the publication of the NOA final rule and the expiration of the stay, as well as the uncertain enforcement date of certain provisions of the AIS portion of that rule. These circumstances did not allow adequate time to develop an NPRM, solicit and consider public comment, and develop and publish a final rule before the expiration of the stay. Instead, the Coast Guard is soliciting public comment with this interim rule while it is in effect and while the AIS requirement will be in effect, if that information collection is approved by OMB, so that the public's experience with this interim rule and the AIS requirement can be reflected in public comments.
This interim rule is effective January 1, 2016. We forgo the 30-day delay in effective date, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) to the extent it relieves the reporting obligations that would otherwise come into effect upon the December 31, 2015 expiration of the stay, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because the Coast Guard finds that the imminent expiration of the stay constitutes good cause for forgoing the 30-day delay of effective date. The Coast Guard published a NOI on November 24, 2015 informing the public that it intended to allow the stay suspending reporting requirements under this RNA to expire on December 31, 2015 as published, and that reporting would resume in a limited form upon such expiration. Delaying the effective date of this interim rule to provide a 30 day notice—in addition to the notice provided by the NOI—would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because a January 1, 2016, effective date is necessary to avoid submission of reports to the IRVMC which is no longer in operation.
The Coast Guard's suspension of reporting requirements under 33 CFR 165.830 will expire as scheduled, in part, on December 31, 2015. On January 1, 2016, reporting requirements under 33 CFR 165.830 will become effective in a limited form. The Coast Guard is not reinstating reporting, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, at 90-plus reporting points under the existing RNA currently published in the CFR. Under revisions made by this interim rule, reporting requirements will be enforced only when directed by the District Commander or a designated representative. This rule does not change the type of information to be reported.
This interim rule makes administrative changes that remove or revise references to the IRVMC, as it is no longer operational, and replace them with the new Coast Guard office, the Eighth District CDC Reporting Unit (D8 CDCRU), which when activated will be responsible for collecting reported information. The entities required to report, and the information required, remain the same. However, reporting is required only as directed by the District Commander or a designated representative, based on assessment of prevailing safety and security conditions to ensure and enhance maritime domain awareness. In effect, the Coast Guard is allowing existing paragraphs (d)(1)(ix), (d)(2)(iv), (f)(9), and (g)(4) to come into effect, with administrative changes to accommodate the closure of IRVMC. We will continue to use the reporting points listed in paragraph (e) to describe where reporting is required. This rule “stays” (suspends) compliance with the other existing reporting requirements.
The District Commander or designated representative will inform vessel operators and fleeting facilities when and where reporting is required, by using established coordination and communication mechanisms already in place and which are used to alert these same vessel operators and fleeting facilities of an increase in Maritime Security level. These notice mechanisms include, but are not limited to, coordination with industry trade organizations, Notices of Enforcement, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and email notifications.
Reports required under this RNA may be provided via email at
The Coast Guard chose to suspend, rather than remove, several paragraphs of the existing rule in order to evaluate their necessity and to retain the ability to reinstate them (using appropriate
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
No new requirements are established or imposed by this rule. This interim rule suspends compliance with certain provisions of an existing regulation that will come into effect when the current stay expires on December 31, 2015 thereby continuing to relieve a reporting obligation while the Coast Guard solicits public comment regarding appropriate reporting. As a result, the currently-stayed requirement will resume only in a limited form. The rule also makes administrative changes affecting which Coast Guard entity directs and receives reporting. None of these changes will have a significant impact on regulated 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 RNA may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The existing collection is approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 1625-0105.
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves administrative changes to resuming reporting requirements in a limited form under an established RNA. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. This interim rule limits the existing, suspended, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year reporting requirement throughout the entire RNA to require reporting only when and where directed by the District Commander, reducing the time frame and area that the reporting requirements are enforced. An environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination are not required. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. 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
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this interim rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 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.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(2) This section applies to towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges in the RNA. This section does not apply to:
(i) Towing vessel operators responsible for barges not carrying CDCs barges, or
(ii) Fleet tow boats moving one or more CDC barges within a fleeting area.
(d) * * *
(4) When required, reports under this section must be made either by email at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound (LIS) Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by COTP Sector LIS.
This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on December 22, 2015 until 12 a.m. on January 01, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, December 10, 2015, until December 22, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-1088]. To view documents mentioned in
If you have questions on this rule, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Martin Betts, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4432, email
This rulemaking establishes a safety zone for the waters around Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT. Corresponding regulatory history is discussed below.
The Coast Guard was made aware of damage sustained to Pleasure Beach Bridge, the result of which created a hazard to navigation.
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 that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to publish an NPRM and solicit comments from the public before establishing a safety zone to address an existing hazard to navigation. The nature of the navigational hazard requires the immediate establishment of a safety zone. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date of this rule to await public comment inhibits the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its statutory mission to protect ports, waterways and the maritime public.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.
On December 09, 2015, the Coast Guard was made aware of damage sustained to Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT that has created a hazard to navigation. The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the safety zone established by this temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways.
The safety zone established by this rule will cover all navigable waters of the entrance channel to Johnsons Creek in the vicinity of Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT. This safety zone will be bound inside an area that starts at a point on land at position 41-10.2N, 073-10.7W and then east along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.57N, 073-9.54W and then south across the channel to a point on land at position 41-9.52N, 073-9.58W and then west along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.52N, 073-10.5W and then north across the channel back to the point of origin.
This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone during the period of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and E.O.s and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The enforcement of this safety zone will be relatively short in duration; (2) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative; (3) this safety zone is designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic, permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterway not designated as a safety zone; and (4) the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to increase public awareness of this safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor, or moor within a safety zone during the period of enforcement, from December 10, 2015 to January 1, 2016. However, this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.
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
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 proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. 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, and EA Checklist, WILL BE in the docket for review. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security Measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
(3) Operators of vessels desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at 203-468-4401 (Sector LIS command center) or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
(4) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
(5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its medical regulations that govern reimbursement of emergency treatment provided by non-VA medical care providers. VA is clarifying its regulations insofar as it involves the reimbursement of medications prescribed or provided to the veteran during the episode of non-VA emergency treatment.
This regulation is effective January 21, 2016.
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB6), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 382-2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)
VA is authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1725 to reimburse an eligible veteran (or the provider of the emergency treatment or another person or entity who paid such expenses on the veteran's behalf) for the reasonable value of emergency treatment furnished to the Veteran at a non-VA medical facility. Under 38 U.S.C. 1728, VA is authorized to reimburse eligible veterans (or the provider of the emergency treatment or another person or entity who paid such expenses on the veteran's behalf) for the customary and usual charges of non-VA emergency treatment furnished to the veteran.
Current VA regulations implementing 38 U.S.C. 1725 and 1728 each state that covered emergency treatment includes “medication, including a short course of medication related to and necessary for the treatment of the emergency condition that is provided directly to the patient for use after the emergency condition is stabilized and the patient is discharged.” See 38 CFR 17.120(b) and 17.1002. It is undisputed that medications directly provided to the veteran or administered to the veteran as part of the emergency treatment are covered. VA has determined that the language “provided directly to the patient” is vague inasmuch as it does not clearly indicate that it also extends to a short course of necessary medication provided to the veteran by way of a prescription that is written or called in to an outpatient or commercial pharmacy by the emergency non-VA provider with instructions to the veteran-patient to obtain and use the medication post-discharge, as directed.
On July 27, 2015, we proposed to amend §§ 17.120(b) and 17.1002 to address this issue. See 80 FR 44318. We proposed amending § 17.120(b) to clarify that VA reimburses the cost of a short course of medication prescribed for the veteran at the time that the veteran was receiving emergency treatment, by stating that emergency treatment includes “a short course of medication related to and necessary for the treatment of the emergency condition that is provided directly to or prescribed for the patient for use after the emergency condition is stabilized and the patient is discharged.” We proposed making a similar amendment to the introductory paragraph of § 17.1002. The proposed amendments in this rulemaking are consistent with current VA policy and help ensure our regulations are not interpreted more narrowly than VA intends.
We provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on September 25, 2015. We received 1 comment in support of the proposed rule. Based on the rationale set forth in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with no changes.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 16, 2015, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Incorporation by reference, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's
The amendments to 47 CFR 11.21(a) and 11.61(a)(3)(iv) published at 80 FR 37167, June 30, 2015, are effective on December 31, 2015.
Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by email at
This document announces that, on December 4, 2015, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the access stimulation rules contained in the Commission's
The OMB Control Number is 3060-0207. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room A-C620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0207, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on December 4, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 11. Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0207.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
EAS Participants must utilize the ETRS to file identifying and test result data as part of their participation in the second nationwide EAS test. Although the ETRS adopted in this
Our analysis indicates that this revised collection will cause no change in the burden estimates or reporting and recordkeeping requirements that the Commission submitted (and which OMB subsequently approved) for the 2011 system. The revised information collection requirements contained in this collection are as follows: Section 11.21(a) requires EAS Participants to provide the identifying information required by the ETRS no later than sixty days after the publication in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the States of North Carolina and Maine and the Commonwealth of Virginia are transferring portions of their 2015 commercial summer flounder quotas to the State of Connecticut. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quota for each state involved.
Effective December 21, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Elizabeth Scheimer, Fishery Management Specialist, (978)-281-9236.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR 648.100 through 50 CFR 648.110. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.102.
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the
Connecticut is receiving the following 2015 summer flounder commercial quota transfers: 10,000 lb (4,534 kg) from North Carolina, 10,000 lb (4,534 kg) from Virginia, and 5,200 lb (2,359 kg) from Maine. These transfers were prompted by state officials in Connecticut to ensure their commercial summer flounder quota is not exceeded. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) are met. The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2015 are: North Carolina, 2,966,243 lb (1,345,465 kg); Maine, 65 lb (29 kg); Virginia, 2,391,568 lb (1,084,796 kg); and Connecticut, 275,045 lb (124,758 kg), based on the final 2015 Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Specifications and Commercial Summer Flounder Quota Adjustments, as published in the
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security is giving notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 in connection with a current system of records titled “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI) System of Records.” The exemptions for the system of records notice published May 28, 2013, continue to apply for the updated system of records for those categories of records listed in the previous System of Records Notice. This document proposes to exempt portions of certain new categories of records ingested from the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) claimed for those records in that system pursuant to the United States Code.
Comments must be received on or before January 21, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0075 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: John Connors, (202) 344-1610, Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is giving notice of a proposed rulemaking that DHS/CBP intends to update its regulations to exempt portions of a system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the “DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records” from one of more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. DHS reissued the current DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI) System of Records in the
CBP's priority mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. To accomplish this mission, CBP maintains border crossing information about all individuals who enter, are admitted or paroled into, and (when available), exit from the United States regardless of method or conveyance. Border crossing information includes certain biographic and biometric information; photographs; certain mandatory or voluntary itinerary information provided by air, sea, bus, and rail carriers or any other forms of passenger transportation; and the time and location of the border crossing. Border crossing information resides on the TECS (not an acronym) information technology platform. DHS/CBP provided notice to the public about the update and expansion of the categories of records as part of DHS's ongoing effort to better reflect the categories of records in its collection of information. DHS/CBP published this updated system of records notice in the
CBP is responsible for collecting and reviewing border crossing information from travelers entering and departing the United States as part of DHS/CBP's overall border security and enforcement missions. All individuals crossing the border are subject to CBP processing upon arrival in the United States. Each traveler entering the United States is required to establish his or her identity, nationality, and admissibility to the satisfaction of a CBP officer during the clearance process. To manage this process, CBP creates a record of an individual's admission or parole into the United States at a particular time and port of entry. CBP also collects information about U.S. citizens and certain aliens (in-scope travelers pursuant to 8 CFR 215.8, “requirements for biometric identifiers from aliens on departure from the United States”) upon departure from the United States for law enforcement purposes and to document their border crossing.
DHS is statutorily mandated to create and integrate an automated entry and exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens, verifies alien identities, and authenticates alien travel documents through the comparison of biometric identifiers (8 U.S.C. 1365(b)). Certain aliens may be required to provide biometrics (including digital fingerprint scans, palm prints, photographs, facial and iris images, or other biometric identifiers) upon arrival in or departure from the United States. The biometric data is stored on the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) information technology platform. IDENT stores and processes biometric data (
Previously DHS established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program to manage an automated entry and exit system. On March 16, 2013, US-VISIT's entry and exit operations (including deployment of a biometric exit system) were transferred to CBP through the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-6, H.R. 933). The Act also transferred US-VISIT's overstay analysis function to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US-VISIT's biometric identity management services to the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM), within the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). CBP assumed biometric entry and exit operations on April 1, 2013.
CBP has continued to develop mechanisms to collect biometric information from departing aliens since assuming responsibility for US-VISIT's entry and exit operations. During these operations, CBP officers may employ technology (
Collection of additional biometric information from individuals crossing the border (such as information regarding scars, marks, tattoos, and palm prints) aids biometric sharing between the Department of Justice (DOJ) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)/Next Generation Identification (NGI) and the IDENT system. The end result is enhanced access to (and in some cases acquisition of) IAFIS/NGI information by the IDENT system and its users. DHS, DOJ/FBI, and the Department of State (DOS)/Bureau of Consular Services entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Improved Information Sharing Services in 2008. The MOUs established the framework for sharing information in accordance with an agreed-upon technical solution for expanded IDENT/IAFIS/NGI interoperability, which provides access to additional data for a greater number of authorized users.
CBP collects border crossing information stored in this system of records through a number of sources, for example: (1) Travel documents (
DHS/CBP updated the categories of records to provide notice that CBP is collecting biometrics such as digital fingerprints, photographs, and iris scans from certain non-U.S. citizens at the time of the border crossing or in support of their use of Global Entry or another trusted traveler program. In addition, CBP updated the categories of records in the SORN to provide notice that CBP plans to collect information regarding scars, marks, tattoos, and palm prints from individuals at the border to aid biometric interoperability between the IAFIS/NGI and the IDENT system. Finally, CBP updated the categories of records associated with APIS transmissions to better reflect the information collected and maintained in the DHS/CBP-007 BCI SORN.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/CBP-007 BCI SORN may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions.
The exemptions for the system of records notice published May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31958) continue to apply for the updated system of records for those categories of records listed in the previous System of Records Notice. However, this document proposes to exempt portions of certain new categories of records ingested from APIS (see DHS/CBP-005 APIS SORN, 80 FR 13407 (March 13, 2015) claimed for those records in that system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Furthermore, to the extent certain categories of records are ingested from other systems, the exemptions applicable to the source systems will remain in effect.
DHS is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt portions of DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the Federal Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for portions of DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records. Specifically, certain records ingested from the DHS/CBP-005 Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) SORN into the DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records will continue to be covered by the exemptions claimed for those records in that system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Information in DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records relates to official DHS national security and law enforcement activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS law enforcement investigations from disclosure to subjects of investigations and others who could interfere with investigatory and law enforcement activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating the investigative process; to avoid disclosure of investigative techniques; protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and of law enforcement personnel; ensure DHS's and other federal agencies' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; protect the privacy of third parties; and safeguard sensitive information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.
In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.
DHS will not assert any exemption with respect to information maintained in the system that is collected from a person at the time of crossing and submitted by that person's air, sea, bus, or rail carriers, if that person, or his or her agent, seeks access or amendment of such information. The DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records Notice was published in the
Freedom of Information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101
46. The DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; law enforcement, border security and intelligence activities. The DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. At the time of border crossing and during the process of determining admissibility, CBP collects two types of data for which it claims different exemptions.
(a) CBP will not assert any exemption to limit an individual from accessing or amending his or her record with respect to information maintained in the system that is collected from a person at the time of crossing and submitted by that person's air, sea, bus, or rail carriers.
The Privacy Act requires DHS to maintain an accounting of the disclosures made pursuant to all routine uses. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), CBP will not disclose the fact that a law enforcement or intelligence agency has sought particular records because it may affect ongoing law enforcement activities. The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from sections (c)(3), (e)(8), and (g) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as is necessary and appropriate to protect this information. Further, DHS will claim exemption from section (c)(3) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) as is necessary and appropriate to protect this information. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(i) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(ii) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(iii) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
(b) Additionally, this system contains records or information recompiled from or created from information contained in other systems of records that are exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. For these records or information only, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d)(1)-(4); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d)(1)-(4); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(i) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(ii) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(iv) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(v) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(vii) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(viii) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(ix) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Request for information.
The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is seeking comment from the public regarding the United States (U.S.) Standards for Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice under the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). To ensure that standards and official grading practices remain relevant, GIPSA invites interested parties to comment on whether the current rice standards and grading practices need to be changed.
We will consider comments we receive by March 21, 2016.
You may submit written or electronic comments on this proposed rule to:
•
•
•
All comments will become a matter of public record and should be identified as “U.S. Standards for Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice request for information comments,” making reference to the date and page number of this issue of the
Electronic submissions should avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses, since these may prevent GIPSA from being able to read and understand, and thus consider your comment.
GIPSA will post a transcript or report summarizing each substantive oral comment that we receive. This would include comments made at any public meetings hosted by GIPSA during the comment period, unless GIPSA publically announces otherwise.
All comments will also be available for public inspection at the above address during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call the GIPSA Management and Budget Services support staff (202) 720-8479 for an appointment to view the comments.
Beverly A. Whalen at GIPSA, USDA, 10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO, 64153; Telephone: (816) 659-8410; Fax Number: (816) 872-1258; email:
Under the authority of the AMA (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, GIPSA establishes and maintains a variety of quality and grade standards for agricultural commodities that serve as a fundamental starting point to define commodity quality in the domestic and global marketplace. Standards developed by GIPSA under the AMA include rice, whole dry peas, split peas, feed peas, lentils, and beans. The AMA standards are voluntary and widely used in private contracts, government procurement, marketing communication, and, for some commodities, consumer information. The U. S. Standards for Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice standards were last revised in 2002 and appear in the AMA regulations at 7 CFR 868.202 through 868.316. The standards facilitate the marketing of rice in foreign and domestic trade, and provide a uniform measure of quality by providing a common language to describe commodity attributes for U.S. producers, exporters and their customers. Official procedures for inspections are provided in GIPSA's
GIPSA inspects shipments of rice in accordance with AMA standards to establish the grade of the rice and issues inspection certificates for each shipment. GIPSA-issued certificates describing the quality and condition of graded rice are accepted as
In order for U. S. standards and grading procedures for Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice to remain relevant, GIPSA is issuing this request for information to invite interested parties to submit comments, ideas, and suggestions on all aspects of the U. S. Standards for Rice and inspection procedures.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The FDIC is proposing to amend its regulations requiring insured State nonmember banks, or subsidiaries of such banks, that act as transfer agents for qualifying securities under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ('34 Act) to register with the FDIC. First, the proposed amendments would require insured State savings associations and subsidiaries of such State savings associations that act as transfer agents for qualifying securities to register with the FDIC, similar to the registration requirements applicable to insured State nonmember banks and subsidiaries of such banks. Second, the proposed amendments would revise the definition of qualifying securities to reflect statutory changes to the '34 Act made by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). The proposed amendments are consistent with the FDIC's continuing review of its regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.
Comments must be received by February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AE41, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Judy Gross, Senior Policy Analyst, (202) 898-7074,
The '34 Act provides that an entity must register as a transfer agent if it functions as a transfer agent with respect to any security registered under section 12 of the '34 Act (Section 12) or if it would be required to be registered except for the exemption from registration provided by Section 12(g)(2)(B) or Section 12(g)(2)(G).
In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act provided for a substantial reorganization of the regulation of State and Federal savings associations and their holding companies. On July 21, 2011, (the “transfer date” established by section 311 of the Dodd-Frank Act), the powers, duties, and functions formerly assigned to, or performed by, the OTS were transferred to (i) the FDIC, as to State savings associations; (ii) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), as to Federal savings associations; and (iii) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as to savings and loan holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act also amended the '34 Act to define the FDIC as the appropriate regulatory agency for insured State savings associations, and subsidiaries thereof, along with insured State nonmember banks, and subsidiaries thereof.
In 2012, the JOBS Act increased the thresholds at which securities must be registered under Section 12(g)(1) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The JOBS Act also amended Section 12(g)(1) to provide that in the case of an issuer that is a bank or a bank holding company, the issuer's securities must be registered when the issuer has total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by 2,000 or more persons.
Part 341 of the FDIC's regulations (part 341) implements Section 12 of the '34 Act by requiring State nonmember banks and subsidiaries thereof that are
The OTS did not issue a rule regarding the registration of securities transfer agents. Instead, the OTS issued a memorandum to covered financial institutions informing such institutions that because of statutory changes in the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006,
The proposed rule is part of the FDIC's continuing efforts to enact rule changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act and more recent statutory changes, such as the JOBS Act, and would make it clear that part 341 would apply to insured State nonmember banks, insured State savings associations, and the subsidiaries of such institutions. Expanding the scope of part 341 to include State savings associations is consistent with provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and serves to increase regulatory consistency for all FDIC-supervised institutions. To that end, the proposed rule would define the term “covered institution” to include an insured State nonmember bank, an insured State savings association, and the subsidiaries of such institutions.
The proposed rule would reconcile the regulatory definition of qualifying securities with the statutory amendments to the '34 Act required by the JOBS Act. The proposed rule would define qualifying securities as (1) securities registered on a national securities exchange pursuant to Section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 78
The proposed definition of “qualifying securities” would cite to Section 12(g)(1) instead of reciting specific quantitative standards to ensure that the FDIC's regulations remain consistent with any future statutory changes to Section 12(g)(1) .
The proposed rule would remove the delegations of authorities related to the registration of securities transfer agents from the rule. In the past, the FDIC has taken steps to remove delegations of authority from its regulations in order to provide the agency greater flexibility in the decision-making process.
The proposed rule would also make certain technical corrections to part 341, such as revising outdated citations and updating the name of the FDIC division granted delegated authority to act on disclosure matters.
The FDIC invites comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. Specifically, should the rule include the definition of “qualifying securities” instead of referring to the exemptions in the `34 Act?
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule would not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invites comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example:
• Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the FDIC present the rule more clearly?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?
• Is this section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?
• What other changes can the FDIC incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend part 341 of chapter III of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Secs. 2, 3, 17, 17A and 23(a), Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c, 78q, 78q-1 and 78w(a)).
This part is issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC) under sections 2, 3(a)(34)(B), 17, 17A and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act), as amended (15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(a)(34)(B), 78q, 78q-1 and 78w(a)) and applies to all insured State nonmember banks, insured State savings associations, or subsidiaries of such institutions, that act as transfer agents for securities registered under section 12 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78
(h) The term
(i) The term
(1) Securities registered on a national securities exchange (15 U.S.C. 78
(2) Securities required to be registered under section 12(g)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78
(a)
(c) * * * Form TA-1 may be completed electronically and is available from the FDIC at
(b) * * * A Request for Deregistration form is available electronically from
By order of the Board of Directors.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is proposing to establish device restrictions for sunlamp products, which would restrict their use to individuals age 18 and older, require prospective users to sign a risk acknowledgement certification before use, and require the provision of user manuals.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by March 21, 2016. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by February 22, 2016. See Section VIII for the proposed effective date of a final rule based on this proposed rule.
FDA is explicitly seeking comment on the risks to health that should be included in the risk acknowledgement certification. You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit comments on information collection issues to the Office of Management and Budget in the following ways:
• Fax to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or email to
Neil R.P. Ogden, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1438, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6397.
Sunlamp products are both “devices” under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)), and “electronic products” under section 531(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360hh(2)). They are designed to incorporate one or more ultraviolet (UV) lamps intended for irradiation of any part of the living human body, by UV radiation with wavelengths in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning (see §§ 878.4635(a) and 1040.20(b)(9) (21 CFR 878.4635(a) and 1040.20(b)(9))). Sunlamp products include tanning beds and tanning booths. Sunlamp products, as defined in proposed § 878.4635, do not include—and this proposed rulemaking does not address—ultraviolet lamps for dermatological disorders regulated under 21 CFR 878.4630.
The FD&C Act establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) defines three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).
FDA regulates electronic products under chapter 5, subchapter C, of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360hh
FDA is undertaking three initiatives to address the risks associated with sunlamp products. First, in a final reclassification order that issued June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31205 at 31213), FDA reclassified sunlamp products and UV lamps intended for use in sunlamp products from class I to class II, and established special controls and
Second, and simultaneously with this proposed rule, FDA is proposing amendments to the sunlamp products and UV lamps performance standard at § 1040.20, which includes technical and labeling requirements issued under the radiological health provisions of the FD&C Act. As explained elsewhere in this issue of the
Finally, in this action, FDA is proposing device restrictions under section 520(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)), which authorizes FDA to issue regulations imposing restrictions on the sale, distribution, or use of a device, if, because of its potentiality for harmful effects or the collateral measures necessary to its use, FDA determines that absent such restrictions, there cannot be a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. The proposed device restrictions would require that:
1. Tanning facility operators permit use of sunlamp products only if the prospective user is age 18 or older;
2. Tanning facility operators, upon request by the user or prospective user, provide a copy of the sunlamp product user manual or name and address of the manufacture or distributor from whom a user manual may be obtained;
3. 510(k) holders assure that a user manual accompanies each sunlamp product and, upon request, provide a copy of the user manual to any tanning facility operator, user or prospective user; and
4. Tanning facility operators obtain each prospective user's signature on a risk acknowledgement certification.
These device restrictions would primarily apply to tanning facility operators, and to a lesser extent, device manufacturers and distributors. FDA considers a tanning facility operator to be any person offering for sale the use of sunlamp products. FDA would not consider people who use their own tanning beds (home users) to be tanning facility operators.
Certain provisions of the FD&C Act relate specifically to FDA's authority over restricted devices. For example, sections 502(q) and (r) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(q) and (r)) provide that a restricted device distributed or offered for sale in any state shall be deemed to be misbranded if its advertising is false or misleading or fails to include certain information regarding the device, or it is sold, distributed, or used in violation of regulations prescribed under section 520(e), and section 704(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374(a)) authorizes FDA to inspect certain records relating to restricted devices.
If this proposed rule becomes final, it may be enforced by means of seizure of the sunlamp product, under section 304 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 334); a suit for injunction, under section 302 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 332); imposition of civil money penalties, under section 303 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 333); or criminal prosecution, under section 303 of the FD&C Act. FDA expects to cooperate with counterpart agencies at the state level in enforcing the proposed requirements, if they become final. Consumer complaints to FDA and State Agencies would be important in identifying entities that violate the conditions for sale or use of these devices.
The General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (2010 Advisory Panel) met on March 25, 2010, to review and discuss recent information regarding the risks to the general public from exposure to sunlamp products, and identified the following risks to health for sunlamp products.
UV radiation exposure can lead to permanent damage to DNA in the skin, which has been shown to lead to an increased risk of skin cancer (Refs. 1-3). Skin cancers that have been associated with cumulative repeated UV radiation exposure include melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) such as basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (Ref. 4). One study suggests that doses of UV-A radiation emitted by high power sunlamp products may be up to 10 to 15 times higher than that of the midday sun, resulting in an intense amount of exposure that does not exist in nature (Ref. 5). Users with a personal history of melanoma have an increased risk of skin cancer, as do users with familial melanoma—having one first-degree relative with melanoma doubles one's risk of developing melanoma (Refs. 6, 7). There is also evidence suggesting that individuals who begin indoor tanning at ages younger than 18 years are particularly vulnerable to the carcinogenic impact of indoor tanning (see section III.A for further discussion).
UV and visible radiation from sunlamp products can be harmful to the eyes if proper protective eyewear is not worn. The UV radiation from sunlamp products can cause keratitis and corneal burns, which can be painful and affect vision (Ref. 8). The intense visible light from some sunlamp products can damage the retina and permanently affect vision (Ref. 8). Artificial UV radiation has also been linked to ocular melanoma, which can cause vision loss and often spreads to other parts of the body (Ref. 9).
A recent study showed that, despite protective properties touted by commercial tanning facilities such as claims that indoor tanning limits exposure time and intensity, 66 percent of female college-age users reported skin erythema (or redness due to sunburn) from indoor tanning, and these users reported one episode of sunburn out of every five tanning sessions (Ref. 10). Those findings are in line with a previous report that found that 58 percent of sunlamp product users ages 11 years to 18 years had experienced sunburns from exposure to sunlamp products (Ref. 11).
In certain individuals who are photosensitive, skin exposure to UV radiation may induce unexpected reactions such as rash, severe burns, and hypersensitivity (Ref. 12). Various drugs may cause a photosensitivity reaction in the skin. Some drugs may cause a phototoxic reaction when they absorb UV-A radiation and cause cellular damage. These drugs include anti-infective drugs such as tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones, cardiovascular drugs like hydrochlorothiazide and amiodarone, psychiatric drugs such as phenothiazines, and retinoids such as isotretinoin (Ref. 13). Some dietary
Sunlamp products, like most light sources, generate heat that can cause thermal skin burns, similar to any hot surface. Individuals with open wounds or lesions are particularly susceptible to burns from UV radiation because these individuals lack the protective epidermal layer of the skin that provides the body's greatest protection from UV irradiation (Ref. 14).
Cumulative, repeated exposure to UV radiation emitted by sunlamp products may lead to accelerated aging of skin due in part to DNA and skin cell damage (Ref. 15). UV irradiation inhibits the production of collagen precursor molecules such as type I and type III procollagen (Ref. 16). UV irradiation stimulates skin metalloproteinases, which break down skin proteins that then lead to photoaging (Ref. 17). On a cellular level, UV radiation has been known to cause DNA damage (Ref. 1).
FDA is proposing the following restrictions which, because of the potential for harmful effects from the device, are necessary for a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of sunlamp products:
Although the risks associated with sunlamp products are applicable to all persons, FDA is proposing to restrict the use of this device to persons age 18 and older because children and adolescents who are exposed to UV radiation may be at higher risk of developing certain types of skin cancer than persons who begin exposure later in life as adults (Ref. 18). In the final reclassification order for this device, FDA established special controls labeling regarding minors' use of sunlamp products and UV lamps intended for use in sunlamp products (see § 878.4635(b)(6)). Based on the increased risk of developing skin cancer and minors' difficulty in appreciating the risks posed by the devices (see Refs. 19 to 24), FDA has determined that use of sunlamp products by minors is not appropriate and is therefore establishing a proposed restriction in this rulemaking action to complement the special controls labeling.
Published medical evidence demonstrates that there is a direct correlation between sunlamp product use among youths and their developing melanoma skin cancer, as well as other skin cancers (Refs. 25, 26). Melanoma is a leading cause of cancer death in women ages 15 years to 29 years and there is some evidence that suggests use of sunlamp products is an underlying cause (Refs. 27, 28).
There is increasing epidemiological evidence that shows that tanning at ages younger than 18 years increases the risk of developing melanoma (Refs. 25, 29 to 32). Melanoma (of the types of skin cancer, this is the more concerning type due to greater potential for fatality) is currently the second leading type of cancer in persons age 20 years to 39 years, and many experts believe that at least one cause for this is the increasing use of sunlamp products (Refs. 30, 33). A 2009 International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) report linked UV exposure (including from indoor tanning devices) by individuals under age 35 to higher rates of melanoma as compared to a similar cohort of individuals who had not used sunlamp products, and recommended that minors not use sunlamp products. Similarly, a meta-analysis by Gallagher et al. that evaluated metrics of sunlamp product exposure, including in young adults, indicated a significantly increased risk of cutaneous melanoma subsequent to sunlamp product exposure (Ref. 34). In particular, the analysis showed a positive association between first exposure as a young adult and subsequent melanoma. Further, a case control study in Connecticut found a relative risk of 1.4 for melanoma diagnosis when individuals are exposed to sunlamp products before the age of 25 (Ref. 35).
In addition, there is increasing epidemiological evidence that shows that tanning at ages younger than 18 years increases the risk of developing NMSC. For example, recent studies found a significantly higher risk for basal cell carcinoma for individuals who used sunlamp products during high school and college as compared to those who used sunlamp products between the ages of 25 and 35 (Refs. 36, 37).
Individuals under 18 who are exposed to UV radiation are at an increased risk of developing skin cancer because (1) there is evidence suggesting that they are particularly vulnerable to the damaging effects of UV radiation and (2) the cumulative effects of exposure have been linked to higher incidence of skin cancer. First, evidence suggests that minors exposed to UV radiation are particularly vulnerable to developing skin cancer (Ref. 38). In particular, migration studies compare people who moved from less UV-intense environments to more UV-intense environments at a young age, for example, children who moved from the United Kingdom to Australia. A number of biological factors, such as skin development and formation of nevi at a young age, are identified as potentially causing the increase in the risk of developing melanoma from exposure to UV radiation, like that from sunlamps (Refs. 18, 39). Second, as with other radiation exposure, increased cumulative lifetime UV exposure results in increased skin cancer risk (Ref. 40).
The age restriction also is necessary because individuals under 18 often fail to appropriately evaluate the significant health risks associated with indoor tanning. For example, a study has shown that college age students often use sunlamp products despite awareness of the long-term risks (Refs. 41 to 43). Rather, persons under age 18 years appear to be discounting whatever risk information they are receiving or may have difficulty incorporating the information into their decisionmaking. For example, a recent study links indoor tanning by high school students to other risk-taking behaviors, including binge-drinking, unhealthy weight control, sexual intercourse, and illegal drug or steroid use (Ref. 20). This linkage suggests that, like other risk-taking behaviors, adolescents use sunlamp products for self-esteem or sensation seeking reasons, irrespective of known health risks (Ref. 20). Similarly, another recent study showed that psychosocial and demographic characteristics strongly correlated with adolescent indoor tanning (Ref. 22). By restricting sunlamp product use to individuals 18 and older, we would be protecting a subpopulation that generally tends to discount risk information and favor risk taking.
Based on the scientific evidence available at the time, some members of the 2010 Advisory Panel recommended an age restriction to preclude use by persons under 18 years of age to reduce the unintended health effects of these devices (Ref. 44). The scientific literature published since that meeting, as described in this document, offers further support for an age restriction (Refs. 20, 22, 41).
Various professional organizations also support an age restriction on sunlamp product use. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified UV radiation from sunlamp products as a class I carcinogen based on the 2009 IARC report that linked sunlamp product use by individuals under age 35 to higher rates of melanoma and strongly urged consideration of restricting minors from using sunlamp products (Ref. 45). Accordingly, the WHO recommends that persons under
The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recognizes WHO's declaration that sunlamp products are cancer-causing agents and are in the same risk category as tobacco, and supports the position that minors should not use sunlamp products (Ref. 47). In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement similar to that of the AAD calling for a restriction on sunlamp product use by minors (Refs. 48, 49).
Experts in pediatrics, public health, and dermatology also support a legislative age restriction on sunlamp product use. For example, recent studies cited other peer reviewed articles to examine the effects of legislation on indoor tanning use (Refs. 22, 50, 51). They concluded that an age restriction or ban would be far more effective at reducing youth indoor tanning than other potential actions such as parental consent (Refs. 22, 50, 51).
This scientific evidence also has led many State and foreign governments to institute age restrictions in the last few years on the use of sunlamp products by minors (Ref. 50). To date, more than 40 states have age restrictions on sunlamp product use (Ref. 52). These restrictions have age limits ranging from ages 14 to 18. At least 11 countries have restricted the use of sunlamp products to adults age 18 and older, including Great Britain and France (Refs. 52 to 54).
Restricting use of these devices to individuals 18 and over should reduce future morbidity and mortality from melanoma and other skin cancers and would help to protect the public health, according to both expert advisory opinion and findings from current scientific, medical, and public health policy literature (Ref. 54). In the journal
This restriction is particularly important because, as previously discussed, it has been shown that increased knowledge of the risks of UV exposure among adolescents and young adults does not appreciably alter their tanning behavior and attitudes (Refs. 19, 41, 42, 55). The use of sunlamp products has been suggested to have both a psychological reinforcing effect in minors due to feedback from others on minors' cosmetic appearance or self-perceptions that leads to continued or increased use, in addition to the physical reinforcing effect that has been linked to high rates of use (Refs. 19, 56).
This age restriction is also important because parental awareness of the risks, educational campaigns, and parental consent to the risks, on their own, have been shown to be insufficient in reducing indoor tanning in young age groups (Refs. 21, 22, 41).
The risks associated with use of sunlamp products by individuals under 18 are particularly concerning given the widespread use of these devices among high school students. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has documented high rates of use in U.S. high school students from its 2011 Behavioral Risk Survey: 13 percent of all high school students report indoor tanning, and 29 percent of white female high school students report usage in the last year (Ref. 53). There are a number of collaborative studies that have demonstrated that young women, in particular, use sunlamp products at increasingly high rates (Refs. 22 to 24, 57). For example, one study found that indoor tanning usage (defined as tanning during the previous 12 months) progressively increased in adolescents (age 14-17) from 5.5 percent at age 14 to 16.5 percent at age 17, which suggests that adolescents use indoor tanning more often as they get older (Ref. 22). Another study analyzed the results of a survey of over 10,000 U.S. individuals age 12 years to 18 years and found nearly 10 percent of respondents used a sunlamp product during the previous year and rates increased to 35 percent for females by age 17, highlighting that teenage girls are more likely than their male counterparts to use indoor tanning facilities (Ref. 24).
FDA seeks comments on its proposal to restrict use of these devices to individuals 18 years of age and over as well as data and information in support of any comments. In addition, although FDA has strong reservations about a parent-consent process in this setting, we recognize parents' decision-making role. We welcome comment on parental consent and its potential scope, including comments on experiences in jurisdictions that have a parental consent provision for use of sunlamp products.
User manuals provide valuable information to operators and users. Sunlamp product user manuals can include vital information such as instructions for use, exposure schedules, maintenance guidance, and device warnings. In order to help ensure the dissemination of this important information to sunlamp product users, FDA is proposing that tanning facility operators be required to provide a copy of the user manual or the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor that can provide a copy of the user manual to any user or prospective user that requests one. Similarly, FDA is also proposing that 510(k) holders be required to provide user manuals to any tanning facility operator, user, or prospective user that requests one. The electronic product performance standard currently requires manufacturers to provide manuals to purchasers and, upon request, to others for the life of the sunlamp product (see § 1040.20(e)). FDA believes that access to the information contained in the user manual would help prospective users make informed decisions when considering whether to use the device and would also inform tanning facility operators and users on how to use the device properly.
FDA is proposing that tanning facility operators would have to provide, and sunlamp product prospective users 18 and older would have to sign, the certification set forth in proposed § 878.4635(c)(4) prior to use of any sunlamp product, unless the prospective user has previously signed the risk acknowledgement certification within the preceding 6 months. The certification provides warnings regarding sunlamp products as well as information regarding the proper use of the devices. By making this information available to users in a direct and accessible manner, the certification would better enable consumers to make informed decisions about their use of sunlamp products. Moreover, and as discussed more fully in this section III.C, the information could counteract any false or misleading information that sunlamp product users may have received regarding the risks of indoor tanning.
Compliance with this proposed requirement would not be unduly burdensome for tanning facilities. The certification has already been drafted by FDA and, as discussed in the economic analysis in Docket FDA-2015-N-1765 and at
FDA proposes that the text of the risk acknowledgement certification would have to be at least 10-point font and that the tanning facility operator would have to provide a copy of the signed acknowledgement certification to the prospective user and retain a copy of the signed acknowledgement certification for 1 year or until the prospective user signs a new risk acknowledgement certification, whichever is sooner. The statements in the certification are intended to inform prospective users of the risks they may be exposing themselves to by using the device and the inherent risks posed by UV radiation, as well as provide information regarding the proper use of the device.
When developing the certification, FDA aimed to inform readers of the most serious risks in a clear and succinct manner in order to promote rapid comprehension and not take more time than necessary for the key information to be conveyed and understood. Readability analysis, human participants' usability testing, and human factors/risk communication analysis were conducted on the certification to ensure the certification achieved its intended goals clearly and succinctly (Refs. 58 and 59). After obtaining feedback from the testing, the certification was revised consistent with recommendations made in the testing and is presented in this proposed rule with its refined content and format. FDA welcomes comment on the proposed certification form.
Unlike a label that must be affixed to a device (see § 878.4635(b)(6)(i)(A)), a risk acknowledgement certification can include more comprehensive warnings to ensure that users are aware of the risks associated with the use of the devices (Refs. 50 and 59). FDA expects that users will consider the risks carefully when signing the certification. If users were provided the certification but not required to sign it, they would be less likely to read the risk information in the certification, and they may even opt not to read the certification, mistakenly thinking that it was promotional material provided by the tanning facility.
Members of the 2010 Advisory Panel recommended that sunlamp product users be required to read and sign an acknowledgement of risks related to sunlamp products before using the device. Since this meeting, FDA has become aware of additional information regarding the use of sunlamp products that further supports the need for risk acknowledgement certifications.
There are reports in the literature that document tanning facility operators failing to inform patrons of certain risks, causing various groups to call for “informed consent” or better informing users at indoor tanning facilities (Ref. 60).
In keeping with the literature, on February 1, 2012, staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce released a report summarizing their findings regarding false and misleading information provided to patrons of indoor tanning salons, especially teenage women. They found, for example, that 90 percent of operators responded that indoor tanning presented no risks (Ref. 61). When pressed about skin cancer specifically, more than half of the operators claimed indoor tanning would not increase the risk (Ref. 61). Some operators who did inform their patrons of skin cancer risks nevertheless mischaracterized the magnitude and the vulnerable subpopulations (Ref. 60). Other operators provided misleading benefit information, including claims that indoor tanning would protect patrons from cancer or beneficially create vitamin D (Ref. 61).
These reported practices support the need for risk acknowledgement certifications, which could counteract any false or misleading information communicated to prospective users. This risk acknowledgment will provide prospective users with accurate information about the risks and proper use of the devices so that they can make informed decisions about their use of these devices.
The Agency has determined that under 21 CFR 25.34(f) this proposed action will not result in increases in the existing levels of use or changes in the intended uses of the product or its substitutes. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). OMB has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. We believe this proposed rule would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, but the impacts are uncertain.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2014) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.
The proposed rule would restrict the use of sunlamp products to individuals aged 18 years and over and require all prospective users to read and sign a risk acknowledgement certification before use (unless the prospective user has previously signed the form within the preceding 6 months). The social benefits from this proposed rule stem from a potential reduction in the incidence of skin cancer. The social costs of the proposed rule are associated with the value of time spent by users and tanning facility operators on the risk acknowledgement certifications and verifying proof of age, as well as other compliance costs. As discussed more fully in the complete assessment, analyzing the impact of the proposed rule is difficult because of the uncertainty of how users would be affected by reading and signing the risk acknowledgment certification and how nonuse when under 18 years of age would affect later adult use. Because of this uncertainty, we use a 1 to 10 percent range in the response rate to the risk information and age restriction, assuming that the age restriction reduces future tanning. Under these scenarios, assuming a discount rate of 7 percent the annualized cost over 10 years would range from $104 million to $114 million; annualized benefits would
In addition to the social costs, the proposed rule would likely generate distribution effects from the reduced demand for tanning services. The annualized reduction in indoor tanning revenues would range from about $500 million to $820 million at a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years and from about $500 million to $825 million at a 3 percent discount rate.
Tanning salons and most of the other establishments who offer commercial tanning services are classified as Other Personal Care Services under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS 812199). We do not have information on the size distribution of this industry but most, if not all, entities are small businesses. There are 18,000 to 19,000 indoor tanning salons and 15,000 to 20,000 other facilities that offer indoor tanning services. The proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities chiefly due to the loss of revenue.
The full assessment of the economic analysis is available in Docket FDA-2015-N-1765 and at
FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a) of the Executive order requires Agencies to “construe * * * a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.” Federal law includes an express preemption provision that preempts certain State requirements “different from or in addition to” certain Federal requirements applicable to devices (21 U.S.C. 360k; See
At the time of publication of this proposed rule, most States and some localities have acted to impose some form or restriction on tanning for minors.
This proposed rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The title, description, and respondent description of the information collection provisions are shown in this section VII with an estimate of the annual recordkeeping. Included in the estimate is the time for maintaining documentation and disclosing materials.
FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The economic analysis for this rulemaking provides a range of 33,000 to 39,000 for the number of tanning facilities (18,000 to 19,000 indoor tanning salons and 15,000 to 20,000 other facilities that offer indoor tanning services). In the PRA analysis we use the mean, 36,000 facilities, for the estimated number of facility-respondents. The economic analysis also provides a range for the number of sunlamp product users (after accounting for the impact of the age restriction and the communication of the risk information) of 10.2 to 11.2 million. We used the mean, 10.7 million, to calculate the average number of users per facility (10.7 million users divided by 36,000 facilities equals an average of 297 users per facility).
Proposed § 878.4635(c)(2) of the proposed rule would require, upon request by a user, tanning facility operators to supply a copy of the user manual for their sunlamp products; or the tanning facility could supply the name and address where the user could request a copy of the manual. We believe the incremental compliance costs to tanning facilities would be negligible because facilities receive the user manual with the equipment and likely already use the information to train their employees. Requests from users would not be frequent and the tanning facility need only supply the name and address, which could be an email address, of the 510(k) holder. We expect it will take approximately 15 seconds for the facility to provide the address.
Proposed § 878.4635(c)(3) of the proposed rule would require the 510(k) holders of sunlamp products to, upon request, supply tanning facility operators, users, and potential users copies of their user manuals. The 510(k) holders would have to develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for responding to requests. In our experience, it would take a company about 5 hours of management time to develop the SOPs and set up a system for response. We believe most of the approximately 20 510(k) holders would satisfy this proposed requirement by making the manuals available on the Internet so recurring costs to satisfy requests for the user manual should be negligible. Many companies already make user manuals available online but for those who do not, it may take up to 10 hours of a computer programmer's time to modify the company's Web site and to upload the manuals for both current and past models that could still be in use. About 20 firms manufacture and distribute sunlamp products that could be affected by these proposed requirements. Because we do not know how many of them have user manuals online and all would have to modify their Web pages so product users could find the manuals, we are assuming all firms will incur one-time costs of 5 hours for SOPs and 10 hours to modify their Web pages. We include an estimate of $27,800 for one-time capital costs to account for the wage rate for a manager and computer programmer.
Proposed § 878.4365(c)(4)(iii) would require tanning facilities to maintain signed risk acknowledgement certifications for at least 1 year or until the user signs a new risk acknowledgement certification, whichever is earlier. The 10.7 million users divided among the 36,000 tanning facilities yields an average of 297 users per facility and since users must sign the certification twice per year, this is 594 certifications to be maintained by each tanning facility per year. Multiplying the 594 certifications by the 36,000 facilities yields 21,384,000 total certifications to be filed per year. FDA expects that filing the certification, either paper or electronic, will take the facility 15 seconds or 0.004 hours and this multiplied by the 21,384,000 total certifications yields a burden estimate of 85,536 hours for this recordkeeping requirement. As mentioned previously, the number of facilities and users is an average based on the range of facilities and users stated in the economic analysis of this rulemaking. Therefore, the resulting hour burden is consistent with, but not identical to, the hours stated in the economic analysis.
We also assume that the first time a user visits a tanning facility after the date the proposed requirements become effective, a tanning facility operator would take an extra 30 seconds to explain to the prospective user the purpose of the certification and the facility's policy regarding its implementation. We have therefore included a one-time burden estimate for facilities to explain the certification to users. As mentioned previously, the numbers of facilities and users are averages based on the ranges of facilities and users stated in the economic analysis of this rulemaking. Therefore, the resulting hour-burden is consistent with, but not identical to, the hours stated in the economic analysis. We estimate the one-time cost burden will be $2 million, the mean of the range ($1.9 to 2.1 million) stated in the economic analysis.
In addition, FDA concludes that the user's proof of age in § 878.4635(c)(1) and the risk acknowledgement certification in § 878.4635(c)(4) do not constitute information but are rather “Affidavits, oaths, affirmations, certifications, receipts, changes of address, consents, or acknowledgments . . .” (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1)).
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3407(d)), the Agency has submitted the information collection provisions of this proposed rule to OMB for review. To ensure that comments on information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed or emailed (see
FDA proposes that any final rule based on this proposal become effective 90 days after its date of publication in the
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 878 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
(2) A tanning facility operator must, upon request by a sunlamp product user or prospective user, with respect to any sunlamp product that the operator operates, provide a copy of the sunlamp product user manual or the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor from whom a user manual may be obtained.
(3) In addition to assuring that a user manual accompanies each sunlamp product, a 510(k) holder must provide, upon request, a copy of the sunlamp product user manual to any tanning facility operator, sunlamp product user, or prospective user with respect to any sunlamp product it manufactures/manufactured or distributes/distributed.
(4)
(ii) The text of the risk acknowledgement certification shall be at least 10-point font.
(iii) The tanning facility operator shall provide a copy of the signed acknowledgement certification to the prospective user and the tanning facility shall retain a copy of the signed risk acknowledgement certification for 1 year or until the prospective user signs a new risk acknowledgement certification, whichever is earlier.
(d)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is proposing to amend the performance standard for sunlamp products and ultraviolet (UV) lamps intended for use in these products. This standard was last amended in 1985. The current amendments seek to improve consumer safety by requiring more effective communication regarding the risks posed by these products. They also would reduce risks to consumers by updating technical requirements to reflect current science, and by adopting and incorporating by reference certain elements from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) International Standard 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0: 2009-12.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by March 21, 2016. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by January 21, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit comments on information collection issues to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the following ways:
• Fax to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or email to
Sharon Miller, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4234, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2471.
The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), enacted on November 28, 1990, transferred the provisions of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-602) from Title III of the Public Health Service Act to Chapter V, subchapter C of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360hh
A sunlamp product is a device that emits UV radiation to induce tanning. The device incorporates one or more UV lamps as a radiation source. Examples of sunlamp products are tanning beds, which are used while lying down, and tanning booths, which are used while standing. UV radiation-emitting products not used for tanning would not be affected by this proposed rule. Devices emitting UV radiation to treat dermatological disorders are regulated separately and are not part of this proposed rule. As electronic products, sunlamp products are subject to the regulations for electronic product radiation control, including parts 1000 to 1010 (21 CFR parts 1000 through 1010) and § 1040.20 (21 CFR 1040.20).
Sunlamp products emit UV radiation to induce tanning. The adverse effects of UV radiation are well known. UV radiation can cause acute injuries such as sunburns and eye irritations (
FDA is concerned about the safety risks from UV radiation. Therefore, FDA is updating our requirements for sunlamp products which allow for indoor exposure to UV radiation. There have been many changes in our understanding of how UV radiation interacts with human skin since FDA published the document entitled “Sunlamp Products; Performance Standard” in the
The objective of this proposed rule is to align the performance standards for sunlamp products with current scientific knowledge and our understanding of how these products are used. This proposed rule seeks to facilitate compliance, improve awareness among operators and consumers about risks of use, and ultimately improve public health.
FDA proposes to incorporate certain elements of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) International Standard 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0: 2009-12, “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-27: Particular Requirements for Appliances for Skin Exposure to Ultraviolet and Infrared Radiation,” by reference. Harmonizing the FDA standard with the current IEC standard would bring it up to date with current science and better protect consumers from the risks posed by these devices. Harmonization would have benefits for sunlamp product manufacturers as well. Currently, many firms producing sunlamp products for sale within the United States and abroad have to follow both IEC and FDA standards. Aligning these standards would mean that such firms would need to comply with a single set of rules instead of two different ones, at least for the particular clauses which are being adopted and incorporated by reference.
FDA proposes to amend the requirements of part 1002 as specified in table 1 to require that manufacturers of UV lamps intended to be used in sunlamp products are subject to the same record and reporting requirements as manufacturers of sunlamp products. FDA wants to ensure that all test data necessary to ensure compliance with § 1040.20 are collected and maintained. Currently, manufacturers of UV lamps are required to submit only product reports. Under proposed § 1002.1, manufacturers of UV lamps would also be required to submit supplemental reports and annual reports and to maintain test records and distribution records. Moreover, proposed § 1002.1 would also require that manufacturers of protective eyewear maintain test records demonstrating that the eyewear complies with applicable UV and visible transmittance requirements as well as distribution records. In addition, proposed § 1002.1 would also require that manufacturers of protective eyewear submit annual reports, supplemental reports, and product reports to FDA.
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(1) would set an absolute limit for UVC radiation. An absolute limit on UVC (200-290 nanometer (nm)) irradiance would provide greater assurance of user safety because a ratio permits higher doses of UVC (as long as they correspond to higher doses in the 260 to 320 nm range). UVC, which is not present in sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface, is potentially harmful to users while less effective for tanning than UVA or UVB. FDA has chosen not to adopt the limit for UVC radiation in Ed. 5.0 of IEC 60335-2-27 because this limit is 10 times lower than the limit in Ed. 4.2 and FDA believes that it would be difficult for some manufacturers to measure irradiance at this level.
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(2)(ii) would limit the maximum timer interval to one that would result in a biologically effective (also referred to as erythemal-effective) dose that would not exceed 500 joules/meter
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(3) would add a requirement that the control enabling manual termination of radiation emission (sometimes referred to as the “panic button” or “emergency stop”) be easily accessible and readily identifiable to the user. This would ensure that users could easily turn the sunlamp product off for any reason.
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(4)(ii) would expand application of the performance requirements to all protective eyewear intended to be used with sunlamp products, whether sold together with a sunlamp product or sold separately. UV wavelengths can cause serious eye damage, and exposure to the shorter wavelength region of the UV spectrum is especially dangerous. The spectral transmittance requirements for protective eyewear are necessary to protect users of sunlamp products from these risks, which directly result from the UV radiation emitted by the sunlamp product.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(i) would modify the warning statement required to appear on the label of all sunlamp products. FDA believes that the current warning statement is too long, not user-friendly, and that its content and format could be improved to more effectively
The proposed rule would also improve user safety by adopting the IEC's “equivalency code” system for ensuring compatibility between sunlamp products (
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3) would retain the requirement of the current FDA standard that the required label information must be legible and readily accessible to view by a sunlamp product user immediately prior to use. Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3)(i) would incorporate specifications into the rule regarding the location, spacing, and font of the required warning statement. FDA believes that these label specifications would ensure that users see the required warning prior to use, and would result in a more comprehensive and effective standard.
Proposed § 1040.20(e)(3) would add a requirement for the provision of the required warning statement in all catalogs, specification sheets, and descriptive brochures intended for consumers in which sunlamp products are offered for sale, and on all consumer-directed Web pages on which sunlamp products are offered for sale. This requirement would ensure that consumers are fully informed of the risks presented by sunlamp products at the time they consider purchasing it.
Proposed § 1040.20(g) is also modeled after the proposed FDA Performance Standard for Laser Products (78 FR 37723, June 24, 2013). FDA believes the addition of these requirements, which have been used successfully over the past two decades for laser products, would improve safety by ensuring that modifications that affect performance would be held to the same standards as original manufacturing.
Estimated one-time costs are $20,917 to $113,240 and annual costs are $4,686 to $7,230. The present discounted costs are $57,181 to $151,390 at 7 percent and $61,498 to $165,883 at 3 percent. Annualized at 7 percent over 10 years, total costs are $8,141 to $21,498. At 3 percent, annualized total costs are $7,867 to $19,447.
The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be from reduced injuries, including sunburn, photokeratitis, skin cancer, cataracts and ocular melanoma, and from reduced exposure to UV radiation. We are unable to quantify the benefits, but where possible, demonstrate that they satisfy breakeven tests using very conservative assumptions. The benefits of this proposed rule would justify the costs.
The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), enacted on November 28, 1990, transferred the provisions of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-602) from Title III of the Public Health Service Act to Chapter V, subchapter C of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360hh
Until recently, sunlamp products intended for tanning were class I medical devices and exempt from premarket notification requirements, subject to the limitation in 21 CFR 878.9 (see 53 FR 23856, June 24, 1988; 59 FR 63005, December 7, 1994). On March 25, 2010, FDA held a meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the FDA/Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Medical Devices Advisory committee to seek input on whether the classification or regulatory controls needed to be changed. For a summary of this meeting, see
As electronic products, sunlamp products are subject to the regulations for electronic product radiation control, including parts 1000 through 1010 and § 1040.20. The sunlamp products performance standard in § 1040.20 was originally published in the
FDA also issued several policy letters pertaining to specific aspects of its regulation of sunlamp products. On June 25, 1985, FDA issued a policy letter entitled “Policy on Warning Label Required on Sunlamp Products” (available at
Before prescribing any electronic product performance standards, FDA is required to consult a statutory advisory committee, the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (TEPRSSC). See section 534(f)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360kk(f)(1)(A)). At the September 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of TEPRSSC, FDA presented general concepts for amendments to the performance standard for sunlamp products, which are embodied in this proposed rule. The committee recommended that FDA pursue development of the amendments.
On February 9, 1999, CDRH published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (Docket No. 98N-1170), 64 FR 6288 (February 9, 1999), for the following reasons:
1. FDA was concerned that inadequate attention was being given to recommended exposure schedules, which are designed to minimize consumer risk.
2. FDA was concerned that the warnings for sunlamp products were not reaching many users of sunlamp products prior to their purchase and use, and that purchasers may not be aware of the risks associated with UV exposure from sunlamp products.
3. Sunlamp products technology has changed since the FDA Performance Standard was amended in 1985. These changes can affect both the intensity and spectral characteristics of the UV emission from sunlamps.
4. Because there is no uniform grading/rating system, choosing a replacement lamp can be confusing for sunlamp product owners and tanning facilities. It also makes the job of tanning facility inspectors more difficult because they cannot easily verify whether the correct lamps are installed in the sunlamp products. The use of incorrect replacement lamps can lead to sunburns.
The specific amendments under consideration were as follows:
1. Harmonizing the sunlamp product performance standard with IEC Standard 60335-2-27;
2. Revising and updating the August 21, 1986, guidance entitled “Policy on Maximum Timer Interval and Exposure Schedule for Sunlamp Products,” and incorporating the updated guidance into the sunlamp product performance standard;
3. Adding a provision clarifying that “manufacturing” under the FD&C Act includes a modification of a sunlamp product that affects any aspect of its performance or intended function for which § 1040.20 has an applicable requirement;
4. Updating the warning statement required by § 1040.20(d)(1)(i) to simplify the wording and to highlight the risk of developing skin cancers;
5. Requiring reproduction of the text of the warning statement specified in § 1040.20(d)(1)(i) in catalogs, specification sheets, and brochures; and
6. Developing a biological efficacy rating scale for UV lamps intended for use in sunlamp products to simplify appropriate lamp replacement.
In response to this ANPRM, FDA received 26 comments from State and local radiation control agencies, manufacturers, the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, an industry educational association, a tanning facility owner, and a trade organization. FDA considered these comments in developing this proposal.
FDA presented recommendations for amendments to the sunlamp performance standard to TEPRSSC on June 21, 2000. FDA explained to TEPRSSC that it was prepared to move forward with some of the amendments at that time, but did not have sufficient scientific data to move forward with the lamp classification or the exposure schedule amendment. TEPRSSC advised FDA to develop scientifically-based exposure schedule guidelines before incorporating these requirements into the Performance Standard itself. FDA scientists obtained special funding from FDA's Office of Women's Health to conduct this research. Upon completion, FDA presented guidelines for exposure schedules to the IEC TC (Technical Committee) 61, MT (Maintenance Team) 16 that is responsible for developing standards for these products. The IEC accepted these guidelines and incorporated them into IEC 60335-2-27 standard (Ed. 5.0), which published on December 14, 2009.
In February 2002, FDA held a 2-day meeting with the indoor tanning industry and representatives from the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Health Canada, the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, and the North Carolina Department of Radiation Protection. The purpose of this meeting was to solicit input from the affected parties on the lamp equivalence issue and other possible amendments to the FDA Performance Standard for Sunlamp Products, which we considered in the development of this proposed rule.
The IEC TC 61, MT 16 committee met in October 2002, and decided to work with IEC SC (subcommittee) 34A to develop practical standardized test methods and a classification scheme for low-pressure, fluorescent tanning lamps to facilitate replacement of these lamps when they wear out. IEC SC 34A has responsibility for the IEC 61228 standard entitled “Fluorescent Ultraviolet Lamps Used for Tanning—Measurement and Specification Method” (Ref. 5). At their meeting in 2003, IEC TC 61, MT 16 and IEC SC 34A reached a consensus position on lamp testing and classification. This position has now been incorporated into the IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0 standard (Ref. 6) and the IEC 61228, Ed. 2.0 standard (Ref. 5).
In October 2003, FDA presented six amendments to TEPRSSC and all were approved with modifications to two of the proposals. These six amendments, along with others, are being presented in this proposed rule and are outlined in section II.
In addition, FDA has informed radiological health representatives from the states of our intentions to amend the Sunlamp Products Performance Standard through semi-annual meetings with the state Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. See Web site at
FDA is concerned about the safety risks from UV radiation. Therefore, FDA is updating our requirements for sunlamp products—which allow for indoor exposure to UV radiation.
FDA is undertaking three initiatives to address the risks associated with sunlamp products. First, in a final reclassification order that issued June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31205 at 31213), FDA reclassified sunlamp products and UV lamps intended for use in sunlamp products from class I to class II, and established special controls and premarket notification (510(k)) requirements under the medical device authorities of the FD&C Act. The special controls include performance testing and labeling requirements, including a warning that sunlamp products are not to be used on persons under the age of 18 years.
Second, and simultaneously with this proposed rule, FDA is proposing device restrictions under section 520(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)), which authorizes FDA to issue regulations imposing restrictions on the sale, distribution or use of a device, if, because of its potentiality for harmful effects or the collateral measures necessary to its use, FDA determines that absent such restrictions, there cannot be a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. As explained elsewhere in this issue of the
1. Tanning facility operators permit use of sunlamp products only if the prospective user is age 18 or older;
2. Tanning facility operators, upon request by the user or prospective user, provide a copy of the sunlamp product user manual or name and address of the manufacturer or distributor from who a user manual may be obtained;
3. 510(k) holders assure that a user manual accompanies each sunlamp product and, upon request, provide a copy of the user manual to any tanning facility operator, user or prospective user; and
4. Tanning facility operators obtain each prospective user's signature on a risk acknowledgement certification before use that states that they have been informed of the risks to health that may result from use of these devices.
These device restrictions would primarily apply to tanning facility operators, and to a lesser extent, device manufacturers and distributors. FDA would not consider people who use their own tanning beds (home users) to be tanning facility operators.
Finally, in this action, FDA is proposing amendments to the sunlamp products and UV lamps performance standard at § 1040.20 (21 CFR 1040.20) (last updated in 1985), which includes technical and labeling requirements issued under the radiological health provisions of the FD&C Act. FDA is taking this action to reflect current scientific knowledge related to sunlamp product use, harmonize it more closely with IEC International Standard 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0: 2009-12, and strengthen the warning statement required by § 1040.20(d)(1)(i) in accordance with the results of the study FDA conducted under section 230 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85).
This preamble will focus on the proposed changes to § 1002.1 and § 1040.20, which include:
• Requiring that UV lamp manufacturers follow the same reporting requirements as sunlamp product manufacturers,
• Requiring that protective eyewear manufacturers maintain distribution records and test records relating to the UV and visible transmittance of the eyewear as well as requiring the submission of annual reports, supplemental reports, and product reports to FDA,
• Changing the content, format, and location of the required warning statement to make it more effective at communicating the risks of indoor tanning to consumers,
• Replacing the current limit on the ratio of UVC to UVB irradiance with an absolute limit on UVC irradiance,
• Limiting the maximum timer interval to one that would not exceed a maximum dose of 500 J/m
• Adopting the IEC “equivalency code” system for labeling and measuring the strength of replacement lamps to prevent original lamps being replaced with more powerful lamps, which can lead to sunburn,
• Changing the current subjective requirement regarding the visible transmittance of protective eyewear to an objective, quantitative requirement, adopted from the IEC standard,
• Adding a cap on the amount of visible transmittance allowed through the protective eyewear, to protect the users' retina from intense visible light,
• Updating the guidelines for the required manufacturer-recommended exposure schedule, by requiring conformity to the IEC standard, which is based on current science,
• Requiring that a reproduction of the warning label be provided in all catalogs, specification sheets, brochures, and consumer-directed Web pages on which sunlamp products are offered for sale, and
• Requiring that persons involved in significant modification of sunlamp products re-certify the product just as the manufacturer of a new product would. This requirement currently exists in the FDA Laser Standard (21 CFR 1040.10(i)).
FDA proposes to amend the requirements of part 1002 as specified in table 1 to require that manufacturers of UV lamps intended to be used in sunlamp products are subject to the same record and reporting requirements as manufacturers of sunlamp products. When table 1 was first codified, it was common for the manufacturers of UV lamps to be the same entity that manufactured the sunlamp product. Today, the market has changed and there are some manufacturers that manufacture only UV lamps. FDA wants to ensure that all test data necessary to ensure compliance with § 1040.20 are collected and maintained. Currently, manufacturers of UV lamps are required to submit only product reports. Under proposed § 1002.1, manufacturers of UV lamps would also be required to submit supplemental reports and annual reports and to maintain test records and distribution records. In addition, manufacturers of protective eyewear would also need to maintain distribution records as well as test records demonstrating that the eyewear complies with applicable UV and visible transmittance requirements. Proposed § 1002.1 would also require that manufacturers of protective eyewear submit annual reports, supplemental reports, and product reports to FDA.
FDA proposes to incorporate certain elements of the IEC International Standard 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0: 2009-12 entitled “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-27: Particular Requirements for Appliances for Skin Exposure to Ultraviolet and Infrared Radiation,” by reference (Ref. 6). See proposed § 1040.20(a)(2). A similar approach has been used successfully with the FDA standard for laser products, § 1040.10, see FDA Guidance, “Laser Products—Conformance With IEC 60825-1 and IEC 60601-2-22” (Ref. 7), and FDA has proposed to incorporate by reference several provisions of IEC 60825-1, Ed. 2, into the laser products performance standard (78 FR 37723). Harmonizing the FDA standard with the current IEC standard would bring it up to date with current science and better protect consumers from the risks posed by these devices. FDA has representation on the IEC committee and has had significant influence on changes made to the IEC standard over the past decade. Working with this committee, which includes representatives from industry, government, and the medical community, has provided FDA with useful expertise and perspectives to which it may not otherwise have access.
Harmonization would have benefits for sunlamp product manufacturers as well. Currently, many firms producing sunlamp products for sale within the United States and abroad have to follow both IEC and FDA standards. Aligning these standards would mean that such firms would need to comply with a single set of rules instead of two different ones, at least for the particular clauses which are being adopted and incorporated by reference.
“Protective goggles” would be added to the definition of “protective eyewear” in proposed § 1040.20(b) since this is the synonymous term used in the IEC standard.
The definition of “sunlamp product” would be amended to make clear that
We propose adding a definition for “tanning course.” This term is used in Annex DD of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, to aid the manufacturer in the development of its exposure schedule. In the context of exposure schedules, “tanning course” means the period of time over which a tan is developed, starting with the first short exposure and building up to longer exposures over time, usually requiring a period of 3 to 4 weeks. In an effort to ensure that a useful recommendation is provided to the user about maximum annual exposure, this concept is utilized in the exposure schedule requirements at proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(iv) and the example exposure schedule provided therein. FDA is uncertain how users might best keep track of their exposure over many weeks and months, and is particularly interested in comments on the best approach for informing users about limiting their annual exposure.
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(1) would set the irradiance limit for UVC radiation (200-290 nm) at 0.03 Watts/meter
FDA proposes to change § 1040.20(c)(2) by adding a dose-based limit similar to the one in FDA's 1986 FDA Policy Letter on Maximum Timer Interval and Exposure Schedule (Ref. 3) to the maximum timer interval requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(ii). FDA also proposes to remove paragraph (v) from § 1040.20(c)(2).
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(2)(ii) would incorporate by reference the action spectrum used in figure 103 of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0 for calculating the effective dose that defines the maximum timer interval. This method uses the internationally-accepted CIE Reference Action Spectrum for Erythema (Ref. 8) instead of the CIE LYTLE action spectrum that was defined in the 1986 FDA Policy Letter on Maximum Timer Interval and Exposure Schedule (Ref. 3). Since 1986, the CIE Action Spectrum for Erythema has been verified and accepted by research laboratories across the globe. As a result, it is used worldwide in the calculation of the UV Index.
The 1986 FDA Policy Letter on Maximum Timer Interval and Exposure Schedule also recommends the use of the Parrish 1982 melanogenesis action spectrum, in addition to the CIE LYTLE erythema action spectrum, as a secondary means of calculating the maximum timer interval. As it has been found that the two action spectra are highly correlated, this calculation does not provide independent characterization data and the requirement is redundant. Therefore, proposed § 1040.20(c)(2)(ii) would not require a second calculation of the maximum timer interval.
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(2)(ii) would limit the maximum timer interval to one that would result in a biologically-effective (also referred to as erythemal-effective) dose that would not exceed 500 J/m
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(3) would add a requirement that the control enabling manual termination of radiation emission (sometimes referred to as the “panic button” or “emergency stop”) be easily accessible and readily identifiable to the user. This would ensure that users can easily turn the sunlamp product off for any reason.
Proposed § 1040.20(c)(4)(ii) would expand application of the performance requirements to all protective eyewear intended to be used with sunlamp products, whether sold together with a sunlamp product or sold separately. As we have previously explained, UV wavelengths can cause serious eye damage, and exposure to the shorter wavelength region of the UV spectrum is especially dangerous. (See 42 FR 65189 at 65191, December 30, 1977.) Short-term risks include photokeratitis, which is very painful and causes temporary loss of vision, and there is also a risk of retinal damage from short-term or long-term exposure, which could cause blind spots to form in the retina. Repeated, long-term UV exposure increases the risk of cataracts, and there is evidence of an association between UV exposure and ocular melanoma (Ref. 11).
The spectral transmittance requirements for protective eyewear are necessary to protect users of sunlamp products from these risks, which directly result from the UV radiation emitted by the sunlamp product. Users of sunlamp products, especially those who tan in tanning facilities, often use protective eyewear manufactured by an entity other than the manufacturer of the sunlamp product. Use of sunlamp products with eyewear that does not meet these requirements would increase the risk posed by the radiation emitted by the sunlamp product and undermine the protection provided by the performance standard. Therefore it is necessary to apply the standard to all protective eyewear intended to be used with sunlamp products.
The proposal would also modify the protective eyewear transmittance requirements of § 1040.20(c)(4)(ii) to better ensure user safety and achieve harmony with the IEC standard. (See clause 32.102 of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0.) The requirements for spectral transmittance in the UV range of 200-400 nm would remain the same as in the current FDA standard. The proposed rule would adopt the limit of 5 percent on the visible transmittance in the range
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(i) would modify the warning statement required to appear on the label of all sunlamp products. FDA believes that the current warning statement is too long, not user-friendly, and that its content and format could be improved to more effectively communicate the risks of indoor tanning to users. As discussed in section I, FDA has been considering updating the required warning since 1999. In 2007, Congress required FDA to conduct consumer focus group testing to evaluate the adequacy of sunlamp product warning labels in conveying certain risk information to consumers, including the risk of skin cancer. (See section 230 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-85.) Based on its analysis of the consumer testing, FDA concluded that the current warning statement could be made more effective by changing its required language, formatting, and location. See the FDA Report to Congress entitled “Labeling Information on the Relationship Between the Use of Indoor Tanning Devices and Development of Skin Cancer or Other Skin Damage” (Ref. 12).
FDA would like to harmonize its standard as much as possible with the IEC 60335-2-27 Ed. 5.0 standard. However, based on the results of the focus group testing, we believe it is appropriate for some differences to remain between the FDA warning statement and the IEC warning statement, especially since the IEC warning statement provides only the general substance to be conveyed (since it is intended for use in multiple languages) and does not provide formatting specifications. FDA believes that the proposed warning statement would most effectively convey the risks of indoor tanning to users. Specifically, the label of each sunlamp product would have to contain a warning statement with the following language and format:
UV can cause:
Wear FDA-compliant protective eyewear to prevent eye damage, such as burns or cataracts.
Follow the recommended exposure schedule to avoid severe skin burns.
Talk to your doctor or pharmacist before tanning if you use medicines and/or cosmetics. Some of these products can make you more sensitive to skin and eye damage from UV.”
Currently, § 1040.20(d)(1)(iv) requires sunlamp product labels to include a recommended exposure schedule containing certain information. FDA proposes to add a requirement that the exposure schedule be developed in accordance with the specific parameters in IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, Annex DD, which would be incorporated by reference. The proposed rule provides an example of a recommended exposure schedule that would meet the guidelines/parameters in IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, Annex DD. See proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(iv). These parameters are different from those provided in the 1986 FDA Policy Letter on Maximum Timer Interval and Exposure Schedule (Ref. 3), and are based on current science, including recent human research conducted at FDA. This requirement is aimed at reducing the cumulative UV dose to sunlamp product users and attaining closer harmonization of FDA and the IEC standard.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(iv) would also require a warning to appear either directly above or below the exposure schedule stating “Skin Type I individuals (always burns, never tans) should never use sunlamp products.” This warning is based on years of published research showing that Skin Type I individuals sunburn easily and cannot tan and are therefore at the greatest risk for skin cancer. By “Skin Type” we are referring to the historical Fitzpatrick skin typing system (Ref. 13) developed in 1975 by dermatologist Thomas Fitzpatrick to predict skin reactivity in phototherapy. Under this categorization scheme, Skin Type I is the fairest and most sensitive while Skin Type VI is the darkest and least sensitive to UV radiation. The Skin Types that are most likely to tan through the use of sunlamp products are Skin Types II through IV. It has been shown (Ref. 14) that Skin Types III and IV can attain a tan with UV doses that are similar to what is needed for Skin Type II. Thus, the same dose can be used to develop and maintain a tan for all three Skin Types. This was confirmed in clinical studies performed at FDA (Ref. 15). This is a change from the approach of the 1986 Policy Letter, which called for exposure schedules to be differentiated by Skin Type.
The proposed rule would also improve user safety by adopting the IEC's “equivalency code” system for ensuring compatibility between sunlamp products (
FDA believes the adoption of the IEC's absolute rating system for replacement lamps would eliminate confusion regarding proper lamp replacement, facilitate the enforcement of lamp compatibility requirements, and improve the safety of sunlamp products. Currently, FDA relies on a relative system in which the lamp manufacturer has to provide to FDA and to users a list of lamps with which the manufacturer's lamp is compatible. (See §§ 1002.10 and 1040.20(e)(2)(iii).) As new lamp manufacturers and new lamp models enter the marketplace, while other manufacturers abandon old models of lamps or leave the marketplace, it is increasingly cumbersome to keep track of which lamps are compatible with the lamps originally provided with the sunlamp product. This can cause confusion for tanning facility owners, FDA, and State or local inspectors. When incorrect lamps are used as replacements, the erythema-effective intensity may be greater, resulting in burns. Therefore, FDA has decided that an absolute rating system is needed,
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3) would retain the requirement of the current FDA standard that the required label information must be legible and readily accessible to view by a sunlamp product user immediately prior to use. FDA provided details regarding compliance with this requirement in its June 25, 1985, policy letter entitled “Policy on Warning Label Required on Sunlamp Products” (Ref. 2). Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3)(i) would incorporate similar specifications into the rule regarding the location, spacing, and font of the required warning statement. The proposal specifies that the warning statement would have to be readily accessible to view whether the tanning bed canopy or tanning booth door is open or closed when the user approaches, which may necessitate that it appear in more than one location on the sunlamp product. FDA believes that these label specifications would ensure that users see the required warning prior to use, and would result in a more comprehensive and effective standard.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3)(ii) specifies that required UV lamp information would have to appear on the packaging of the lamp in addition to being permanently affixed or inscribed on the lamp itself. This would ensure that anyone replacing a UV lamp would be aware of the lamp equivalency code and required warnings before and after purchase.
We propose revising § 1040.20(d)(3)(iv) to achieve consistency with the requirement in the device labeling regulations at 21 CFR 801.15(c)(1) that all words, statements, and other information required by or under authority of the FD&C Act to appear on the label or labeling of a device must appear in the English language (or a foreign language for articles distributed solely in Puerto Rico or in a Territory where the predominant language is not English). Since the labeling of UV lamps must comply with the labeling requirements of part 801 and § 1040.20, we propose to remove the language in § 1040.20(d)(3)(iv) that permits the manufacturer to express the manufacturer's name and month and year of manufacture as code or symbols. FDA is not aware of any request to use symbols or codes for this purpose in the past.
The proposal would remove § 1040.20(e)(1)(iv) since the recommended exposure schedule no longer needs to be differentiated by skin type and would be required to be prominently displayed at the beginning of the users' instructions under proposed § 1040.20(e)(1)(i).
Proposed § 1040.20(e)(1)(v) would add a requirement for the provision of instructions and warnings regarding assembly, operation, and maintenance, which is modeled on the proposed FDA Performance Standard for Laser Products (78 FR 37723). This would better protect individuals who assemble, test, and maintain sunlamp products.
Proposed § 1040.20(e)(3) would add a requirement for the provision of the required warning statement in all catalogs, specification sheets, and descriptive brochures intended for consumers in which sunlamp products are offered for sale, and on all consumer-directed Web pages on which sunlamp products are offered for sale. This requirement would ensure that consumers are fully informed of the risks presented by sunlamp products at the time they consider purchasing it.
Proposed § 1040.20(f) would add a requirement that the performance requirements for the measuring instrument in clause 32.101 of IEC 60335-2-27 Ed. 5.0 would apply.
Proposed § 1040.20(g) is also modeled after the proposed FDA Performance Standard for Laser Products (78 FR 37723). FDA believes the addition of these requirements, which have been used successfully over the past 2 decades for laser products, would improve safety by ensuring that modifications that affect performance would be held to the same standards as original manufacturing.
Section 532 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ii) authorizes FDA to establish and administer an electronic product radiation control program to protect the public health and safety. Section 534 of the FD&C Act gives FDA authority to issue regulations establishing performance standards for electronic products to control their emission of radiation. These standards may include requirements for product testing and radiation measurement, the attachment of warning signs and labels, and the provision of instructions for product installation, operation, and use. Section 1003(b)(2)(E) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(E)) requires FDA to ensure that public health and safety are protected from electronic product radiation. In addition, section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) authorizes the Agency to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
Section 230 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) directed FDA to determine whether changes to the warning statement would more effectively communicate the risks of indoor tanning, such as skin cancer, and to submit a report that includes an explanation of the measures being implemented to significantly reduce the risks associated with indoor tanning devices. As explained in section II, based on consumer testing, FDA determined that the proposed warning statement would better communicate the risks of indoor tanning to consumers, and is proposing these amendments to the sunlamp products performance standard to significantly reduce the risks associated with these products.
FDA proposes that any final rule issued based on this proposal become effective 1 year after the date of publication of the final rule in the
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(c) that this proposed action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environment impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). We have
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. We do not believe this proposed rule would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, but the impacts are uncertain so we are explicitly seeking comment on the impacts.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2014) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.
The proposed rule would affect several aspects of the performance standards to reduce risks associated with use. The costs are summarized in table 1. Estimated one-time costs are $20,917 to $113,240 and annual costs are $4,686 to $7,230. The present discounted costs are $57,181 to $151,390 at 7 percent and $61,498 to $165,883 at 3 percent. Annualized at 7 percent over 10 years, total costs are $8,141 to $21,498. At 3 percent, annualized total costs are $7,867 to $19,447.
The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be from reduced injuries, including sunburn, photokeratitis, skin cancer, cataracts and ocular melanoma and from reduced exposure to UV radiation. We are unable to quantify the benefits, but demonstrate that they satisfy breakeven tests using very conservative assumptions. The benefits of this proposed rule would justify the costs.
The full assessment of the economic analysis is available in Docket FDA-1998-N-0880 and at
FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a) of the Executive Order requires Agencies to “construe * * * a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.” Federal law includes an express preemption provision at section 542 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ss) that preempts the States from establishing, or continuing in effect, any standard with respect to an electronic product which is applicable to the same aspect of product performance as a Federal standard prescribed under section 534 of the FD&C Act and which is not identical to the Federal standard. If this proposed rule is made final, the final rule would prescribe a Federal standard under section 534 of the FD&C Act. However, section 542 of the FD&C Act does not “prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a requirement with respect to emission of radiation from electronic products procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a more restrictive standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.” (Section 542 of the FD&C Act.)
This proposed rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). A description of these provisions is given in the paragraphs that follow with an estimate of the annual reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure burden. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing each collection of information.
FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Current § 1002.1 requires that sunlamp product manufacturers submit product reports, supplemental reports, and annual reports and requires that test records and distribution records are maintained, used for summary data submitted in the annual report, and made available upon request. In addition, current § 1002.1 requires UV
Proposed § 1002.1 would also require that manufacturers of protective eyewear maintain test records and distribution records as well as submit annual reports, supplemental reports, and product reports. The eyewear must meet certain transmittance limits in the UV and visible wavelength range. Both manufacturers of sunlamp products that include eyewear with their products and manufacturers of protective eyewear that is sold separately would be responsible for maintaining records of the results yielded by the testing and reporting these results to FDA. (See § 1002.1.) There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with testing the eyewear because this requirement reflects current market practices.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii) would require that the UV lamp labeling include a replacement lamp code instead of a list of compatible replacement lamps. Although the single UV lamp manufacturer in the United States is already required to conduct spectral irradiance testing of lamps in order to demonstrate compatibility with other model lamps (whether made by that company or other manufacturers), proposed § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii) would require testing in accordance with test methods as specified in IEC 61228, Ed. 2.0, “Fluorescent Ultraviolet Lamps Used for Tanning—Measurement and Specification Method.” The spectral irradiance data obtained is used to calculate the UV code that would be required to be printed on the lamp by proposed § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii). Manufacturers would be responsible for maintaining and reporting records of the results yielded by the testing as well as imprinting the lamp with the replacement lamp code.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(2)(iii) would require that each UV lamp have a label containing the model identification of the lamp, if applicable. Manufacturers would be responsible for printing the model number on the lamp itself.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3)(iii) would permit the manufacturer of the sunlamp product or UV lamp to submit a request to the Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health for an approval of alternate labeling if the size, configuration, design, or function of the sunlamp product or UV lamp would preclude compliance with the requirements for any required label or would render the required wording of such label inappropriate or ineffective. In these circumstances, manufacturers would be responsible for reporting the request to FDA. The operating and maintenance costs associated with this provision are based on correspondence costs (postage) for non-email communications.
Proposed § 1040.20(d)(3)(iv) would permit manufacturers of UV lamps to permanently affix or inscribe the tags or labels required by §§ 1010.2(b) and 1010.3(a) on the lamp packaging associated with the UV lamps, rather than the UV lamps themselves. The third party disclosure burden of this provision would be the time it takes to inscribe the label or tag on the UV lamp packaging.
Proposed § 1040.20(e)(1)(v) would require instructions for sunlamp “assembly, operation, and maintenance,” and would include a schedule of maintenance. This information would also protect those maintaining and assembling sunlamp products from inadvertent exposure to UV radiation by providing adequate instructions to avoid UV exposure during assembly or maintenance. We presume that the maintenance schedules would be developed from known information about how to properly maintain these devices. The third party disclosure burden of this provision would be the time spent bringing this known information into a user-friendly format and disclosing it to users. We also assume that this information would be identical for all units of a given model of sunlamp products.
Proposed § 1040.20(g) would require that those who change the function or performance characteristics of a sunlamp are manufacturers and would need to recertify and re-identify the device. This requirement applies only if the modification affects any aspect of the product's performance or intended function(s) for which § 1040.20 has an applicable requirement. We believe some sunlamp owners (
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
For § 1002.1(b)—Lamp only, we estimate the single U.S.-based manufacturer of UV lamps would need to submit 2 new types of reports (supplemental reports and an annual report) for the 75 models. Based on previous submissions, we estimate that nine supplemental reports would be submitted per year. Annual reports are submitted once per year. We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours to complete each report for a total of 18 burden hours.
For § 1002.1(b)—Protective eyewear, we estimate that the five respondents would need to report the information annually and that each of the manufacturers produces two models of protective eyewear. Manufacturers are not required to produce two types of eyewear; however, FDA estimates that each of the five respondents produces two types of eyewear that could be made available with sunlamp products. Manufacturers would fill out and submit the annual, supplemental, and product reports demonstrating conformance to the performance standard, and this process is estimated to take 30 minutes per report for a total of 10 hours.
For § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii), we estimate that the single U.S.-based manufacturer of UV lamps would test 75 UV lamps and that the time needed to incorporate the data into the product report is 1 hour.
For § 1040.20(d)(3)(iii), we estimate that one sunlamp product and UV lamp manufacturer would submit a request for alternate labeling approval to FDA. This task is expected to be performed by clerical staff that prepare the request and submit it to FDA. This process is expected to take 10 minutes (.17 hours) to type the request and email it. The request is expected to be submitted electronically and does not involve any operating and maintenance cost.
For § 1040.20(g), we estimate that, at most, one respondent per year would decide to re-certify a sunlamp product with the Agency, instead of the less expensive alternative of purchasing a new sunlamp product. The $43,000 capital costs for recertifying the sunlamp product includes the required instrumentation and calibration light sources such as a double-grating spectroradiometer with integrating sphere and software. We estimate the time needed to make the necessary spectral measurements and compile them into a report that would be sent to FDA to take 8 hours.
For § 1002.1(b)—Lamp only, we estimate the single U.S.-based manufacturer of UV lamps would need to maintain 2 types of records (test records and distribution records) for each of the 75 models and that it takes approximately 2 minutes per model per record for a total of 300 minutes, or 5 burden hours.
For § 1002.1(b)—Protective eyewear, we estimate that there are five U.S. manufacturers of protective eyewear that would be affected by this amendment. However, this number is uncertain and we welcome comment on this issue. We estimate that each of the manufacturers produces 2 models of protective eyewear and the manufacturer would sample approximately 10 units per model. The time required to perform the necessary testing, including time to verify the instrument, set up the test and prepare and file a report takes approximately 7 hours per model. Protective eyewear manufacturers would also be required to maintain distribution records for their products. We estimate that 7 hours per year would be necessary for the manufacturer to log and file the distribution data. We estimate a total of 105 hours for each manufacturer to maintain the single distribution record for both models of protective eyewear as well as perform the testing for the individual test records that are to be maintained for each model of protective eyewear.
For § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii), we expect that the single U.S.-based lamp manufacturer does not use IEC UV codes and would have to test and label its models under the proposed rule. The manufacturer has an estimated 30 to 120 models and we chose the mean number of models (75) for our calculations. The mean cost of testing each model is $350 and the cost for an ink stamp is $50 per model,
For § 1040.20(d)(1)(vi), we estimate that the five respondents would need to list the code range that can be used in each of the 5,200 sunlamp products produced annually. We estimate 2 minutes to print and affix this label on each the 26,000 sunlamp products, for a total of 88 hours.
For § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii), the single U.S.-based lamp manufacturer would need to inscribe the UV lamp equivalency code onto each lamp. We estimate it would take 1 minute to ink stamp 10 lamps with the new UV lamp equivalency code. The operating and maintenance costs for this information collection are subsumed in the recordkeeping burden estimate for § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii). The lamp manufacturer produces 286,000 new lamps per year so this process is expected to take approximately 28,600 minutes per year, or about 486 hours.
For § 1040.20(d)(2)(iii), the single U.S.-based lamp manufacturer would need to inscribe the model identification onto each lamp. We estimate it would take 1 minute to ink stamp ten lamps with the model identifier. The operating and maintenance costs for this information collection are subsumed in the recordkeeping burden estimate for § 1040.20(d)(2)(ii). The lamp manufacturer produces 286,000 new lamps per year so this process is expected to take approximately 28,600 minutes per year, or about 486 hours.
For § 1040.20(d)(3)(iv), we estimate that the single U.S.-based lamp manufacturer would permanently affix or inscribe the tags or labels required by §§ 1010.2(b) and 1010.3(a) on the packaging of all the UV lamps rather than the lamps themselves. Since lamps are typically packaged and sold in cases of 12, this yields 23,833 packages that must bear the third party disclosure required by § 1040.20(d)(3)(iv). We estimate it would take 1 minute to ink stamp 10 lamp packages with the tags or labels required by §§ 1010.2(b) and 1010.3(a) for a total of 41 hours.
For § 1040.20(d)(3)(ii), the single U.S.-based lamp manufacturer would need to inscribe or affix the UV lamp equivalency code on the packaging of each lamp. We estimate it would take 1 minute to ink stamp 10 lamp packages with the new UV lamp equivalency code. The lamp manufacturer produces 286,000 new lamps per year so this process is expected to take 28,600 minutes per year, or about 486 hours.
For § 1040.20(e)(1)(v), we estimate the 5 respondents would need to go through this reporting exercise once for each of their 10 models of sunlamp products. We estimate that 10 hours of a technician's time would be required to collect all the necessary information regarding maintenance and assembly and 2 hours of a manager's time to review this information once it is re-formatted into the user instructions. Thus, we estimate a total of 12 hours per model of sunlamp product would be required for a total of 600 hours. This would be a one-time cost.
This proposed rule also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information found in proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(ii); (d)(1)(iii); (d)(1)(iv), 1st sentence; (d)(1)(v); (e)(1)(i) to (e)(1)(iv); (e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0025 (expires January 1, 2017); the collections of information found in § 1040.20(d)(3)(v) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485 (expires February 28, 2015).
In addition, FDA concludes that proposed § 1040.20(d)(1)(i); (d)(1)(iv), 2nd and 3rd sentences; (d)(2)(i); (d)(2)(iv); (d)(3)(i); and (e)(3) do not constitute “collection[s] of information” under the PRA. Rather, the labeling statements are “public disclosure[s] of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public.” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).)
To ensure that comments on information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see
In compliance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3407(d)), the Agency has submitted the information collection provisions of this proposed rule to OMB for review. These requirements will not be effective until FDA obtains OMB approval. FDA will publish a notice concerning OMB approval of these requirements in the
FDA is proposing to incorporate by reference certain portions of the IEC International Standards 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0: 2009-12 entitled “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-27: Particular Requirements for Appliances for Skin Exposure to Ultraviolet and Infrared Radiation”; and 61228, Ed. 2.0, “Fluorescent Ultraviolet Lamps Used for Tanning—Measurement and Specification Method.” You may purchase a copy of these materials from the International Electrotechnical Commission (EC Central Office), 3 rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, call +41 22-919-02-11,
The IEC 60335 standard describes technical specifications that address the safety of electrical appliances that incorporate emitters for exposing the skin to UV and infrared radiation, including those found in tanning salons or other facilities. The IEC 61228 standard describes the method to measure, evaluate, and specify the characteristics of fluorescent UV lamps that are used in appliances for tanning purposes. The ANSI standard describes technical specifications that will help ensure only appropriate bulbs can be fitted to the appliance.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Comments on the following two proposals listed are of special interest to FDA:
1. The Use of the Limit on UVC Irradiance of 0.03 W/cm
2. The Use of a Limit of 500 J/m
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Electronic products, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Electronic products, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Lasers, Medical devices, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR parts 1002 and 1040 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 352, 360, 360i, 360j, 360hh-360ss, 371, 374, 393.
21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360, 360e-360j, 360hh-360ss, 371, 381, 393.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(ii) The maximum timer interval may not exceed the manufacturer's recommended maximum exposure time
(iii) No timer interval may have an error greater than 10 percent of the maximum timer interval of the sunlamp product.
(iv) The timer may not automatically reset and cause radiation emission to resume for a period greater than the unused portion of the timer cycle, when emission from the sunlamp product has been prematurely terminated.
(3)
(4)
(ii) The spectral transmittance to the eye of all protective eyewear intended to be used with the sunlamp product shall not exceed a value of 0.001 over the wavelength range of greater than 200 nm through 320 nm, shall not exceed a value of 0.01 over the wavelength range of greater than 320 nm through 400 nm, and shall not exceed a value of 0.05 over the wavelength range of greater than 400 nm through 550 nm. In order to ensure adequate visibility through the protective eyewear, the luminous transmittance shall not be less than 1.0 percent. Spectral transmittance and luminous transmittance must be measured in accordance with clause 32.102 of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, which is incorporated by reference.
(5)
(d)
(1)
(i) A warning statement with the following language and format:
(ii) Exposure position(s) that may be expressed either in terms of a distance specified both in meters and in feet (or in inches) or through the use of markings or other means to indicate clearly the recommended exposure position.
(iii) Directions for achieving the recommended exposure position(s) and a warning that the use of other positions may result in overexposure.
(iv) The manufacturer's recommended exposure schedule, including maximum exposure times per session, and overall maximum exposure time, in minutes, and spacing of sequential exposures. This schedule, with the following exceptions, must be developed in accordance with Annex DD of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, which is incorporated by reference.:
(A) The maximum single dose (which corresponds to the maximum timer interval at 1040.20(c)(2)(ii)) is 500 J/m
(B) Information regarding the maximum number of exposures per year must be based on a maximum yearly dose of 15 kJ/m
(C) The exposure schedule must also include the following warning: “Skin Type I individuals (always burns, never tans) should never use sunlamp products.” The exposure schedule must also include the statement: “Maximum sessions per week = 2.”
(D)
(v) A statement indicating the time it may take before the expected results appear.
(vi) The designation of the ultraviolet lamp equivalency code range to be used in the sunlamp product as defined in Clause 22.111 and Annex CC of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, which is incorporated by reference.
(2)
(i) The warning: “Sunlamp—DANGER—Ultraviolet radiation. Follow instructions.”
(ii) The UV lamp equivalency code as defined in Annex CC of IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0, which is incorporated by reference. The availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (i) of this section. In determining the “UV code” component of the UV lamp equivalency code, output must be measured in accordance with IEC 61228, Ed. 2.0 (iii) The model identification, if applicable.
(iv) The words “Use ONLY in fixture equipped with a timer.”
(3)
(A) It shall appear on a prominent part or panel displayed under normal conditions of use so that it is readily accessible to view whether the tanning bed canopy (or tanning booth door) is open or closed when the person who will be exposed approaches the equipment;
(B) It shall be physically separate and visually distinct from the other required label information;
(C) It shall meet the following font size and font color requirements: The lettering in the word “DANGER” shall be at least 10 millimeters (height), at least double the height of the other words in the warning statement, in all capital letters, and in red or another font color that is legible and distinct from the other words in the warning statement. The lettering in the other words in the warning statement shall be at least 5 millimeters (height) and in lower case or title case.
(ii) The information prescribed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section for ultraviolet lamps shall be permanently affixed or inscribed on the lamp itself so as to be legible and readily accessible to view, as well as on the packaging of the lamp.
(iii) If the size, configuration, design, or function of the sunlamp product or ultraviolet lamp would preclude compliance with the requirements for any required label or would render the required wording of such label inappropriate or ineffective, the Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, on the Director's own initiative or upon written application by the manufacturer, may approve alternate means of providing such information or alternate wording for such label, as appropriate.
(iv) In lieu of permanently affixing or inscribing tags or labels on the ultraviolet lamp as required by §§ 1010.2(b) and 1010.3(a) of this chapter, the manufacturer of the ultraviolet lamp may permanently affix or inscribe such required tags or labels on the lamp packaging uniquely associated with the lamp, if the name of the manufacturer and month and year of manufacture are permanently affixed or inscribed on the exterior surface of the ultraviolet lamp so as to be legible and readily accessible to view.
(v) A label may contain statements or illustrations in addition to those required by this paragraph if the additional statements are not false or misleading in any particular,
(e)
(1)
(i) A reproduction of all the label information required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section prominently displayed at the beginning of the instructions.
(ii) A statement of the maximum number of people who may be exposed to the sunlamp product at the same time and a warning that only that number of protective eyewear has been provided.
(iii) Instructions for the proper operation of the sunlamp product including the function, use, and setting
(iv) Instructions for obtaining repairs and recommended replacement components and accessories which are compatible with the sunlamp product, including compatible protective eyewear, ultraviolet lamps, timers, reflectors, and filters, which will, when installed and used as instructed, result in continued compliance with the standard.
(v) Manufacturers of sunlamp products shall provide as an integral part of any user instruction or operation manual that is regularly supplied with the product, or, if not so supplied, shall cause to be provided with each sunlamp product: Adequate instructions for assembly, operation, and maintenance, including clear warnings concerning precautions to avoid possible exposure to ultraviolet radiation during assembly, testing, and maintenance, and a schedule of maintenance necessary to keep the sunlamp product in compliance with this section.
(2)
(i) A reproduction of the label information required in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, prominently displayed at the beginning of the instructions.
(ii) A warning that the instructions accompanying the sunlamp product must always be followed to avoid or to minimize potential injury.
(3)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1889 L St. NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036,
(i) ANSI C81.10-1976, “Specifications for Electric Lamp Bases and Holders—Screw-Shell Types,” dated September 1976.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), EC Central Office, 3 rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland,
(i) IEC 60335-2-27, Ed. 5.0: 2009-12, “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-27: Particular Requirements for Appliances for Skin Exposure to Ultraviolet and Infrared Radiation,” dated December 2009.
(ii) IEC 61228, Ed. 2.0, “Fluorescent Ultraviolet Lamps Used for Tanning—Measurement and Specification Method,” dated January 2008.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for Comments (RFC).
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) is incorporated in our regulations, approved by FHWA, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. This document asks for responses to a series of questions regarding the future direction of the MUTCD. Specific topic areas include target audience/intended user, content and organization, process for introducing new traffic control devices, and frequency of MUTCD editions.
Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2016.
Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal at
For questions about the program discussed herein, contact Mr. Kevin Sylvester, MUTCD Team Leader, FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-2161, or via email at
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
The FHWA is interested in planning for future editions of the MUTCD
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from users of the MUTCD about the direction of future editions of the MUTCD. This notice includes a set of specific questions for which FHWA requests comments. Comments and input may be offered on any part of this notification.
The MUTCD is incorporated by reference within Federal regulations at 23 CFR part 655, approved by FHWA, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads. The MUTCD was incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations beginning with the publication of the 1971 edition. There have been 10 editions of the MUTCD, beginning with the first edition in 1935. The current MUTCD is the 2009 Edition, incorporating Revisions 1 and 2, dated May 2012 and is available to the public at
Over the last several years, the transportation community has expressed concern over several issues related to the MUTCD: (1) Size, (2) complexity in finding information, (3) amount/type of information in the MUTCD, and (4) timeframe required for new traffic control devices or applications to be incorporated. To begin to address these issues, FHWA published an RFC at 78 FR 2347 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) on January 11, 2013, requesting comment on a potential restructuring of the MUTCD into two documents: The MUTCD and an Applications Supplement (herein referred to as “Restructuring RFC”). The FHWA's response to the comments, issued June 17, 2013, at 78 FR 36132 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118-0187), indicated that given the lack of support from the MUTCD user community, FHWA would not proceed with restructuring the MUTCD into two documents. As discussed in the response to comments, more than 90 percent of the docket letters were either against splitting the MUTCD into two separate documents (approximately 56 percent of responses), or recommended postponing any action to split the manual pending results from the ongoing NCHRP strategic planning effort (approximately 34 percent of responses), which was expected to be available in January 2014. The strategic planning effort was to address many issues that would impact future MUTCD content and structure, including consideration of an MUTCD that would consist of more than one volume. In addition to requesting that FHWA wait for the results of the NCHRP strategic planning effort, many State and local agencies, associations, and consultants suggested that if a decision were to be made to restructure the MUTCD in any significant way, it would be critical for FHWA to partner with stakeholders to develop content for a restructured MUTCD.
The NCHRP task to which the commenters were referring, NCHRP 20-07/Task 323, is now complete. The objective of the task was to develop a long-range Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD. The plan was delivered to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, which approved it by ballot, and then to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) where that organization adopted the plan (herein referred to as the Vision and Strategic Plan) at its January 2014 meeting.
Concurrent with this effort, FHWA is preparing a Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) for the next edition of the MUTCD. The publication date of the NPA is not yet known. Depending on the nature and extent of comments submitted for this RFC, FHWA may incorporate some of the suggestions in the next edition of the MUTCD. More importantly, FHWA is looking to begin planning for MUTCD editions further into the future with the comments submitted for this RFC.
As discussed above, the public may submit comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
Over the years, the MUTCD has expanded in size, due in part to the belief that the MUTCD needs to contain information that is appropriate for all its users. The size and complexity of the MUTCD have significantly increased primarily because of an expansion of the number of devices included in the MUTCD and the desire to provide more specifics in conveying the intent of the language in order to avoid uncertainty. The first edition of the MUTCD, published in 1935, had 166 pages, whereas the current MUTCD contains 820 pages of technical provisions. As discussed in the Restructuring RFC in 2012, FHWA is interested in examining ways to simplify and streamline the MUTCD in a manner that is most user-friendly, while maintaining the appropriate amount of information.
The MUTCD is used by a wide audience, from State, local, and consulting traffic engineers, to traffic control device technicians, and to some extent, the public. The Vision and Strategic Plan suggests that the size and the complexity of the MUTCD may be reduced by targeting the MUTCD to a more specific audience or organizing it to provide information for different types of users. While FHWA understands that the MUTCD has gained a wide audience, writing or organizing the MUTCD accordingly may be cumbersome and may not have the intended result of simplifying the MUTCD. The MUTCD is currently designed as an engineering reference manual.
1A. Should MUTCD content continue to be written with a traffic engineer as the intended audience?
As indicated above, FHWA previously issued the Restructuring RFC to identify potential options for simplifying the MUTCD. Comments were not in favor of splitting the MUTCD into two separate documents and many suggested waiting on the results of the Vision and Strategic Plan before determining whether or not the MUTCD should be restructured in a significant way.
In addition to simplifying, FHWA is exploring several of the reorganizing suggestions received from the Restructuring RFC. The current structure of the MUTCD is based on the type of device and the specialized application of devices. The 2009 edition includes Parts 1 through 4 for types of devices and Parts 5 through 9 for specialized applications of devices. This has been the basic structure of the MUTCD since its inception. In the 2000 edition, FHWA added the current headings of content (Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support paragraphs). The headings provide a clear level of mandate associated with specific content. However, this division by level of mandate can create challenges in providing text that reads well and flows together.
In order to provide greater flexibility in the MUTCD, the Vision and Strategic Plan recommends an additional level of mandate that would include two versions of Standard statements rather than one. Both types would be requirements, but one level would relate to uniformity while the other would relate to consistency. The uniformity Standard would require the same action in every case and would not allow for deviation based on site conditions. The consistency Standard would require the same action in every case unless a deviation was warranted to accommodate local conditions. The meanings of Guidance (recommended) and Option (permissible) provisions would remain unchanged. The FHWA believes that this concept is not viable for several reasons. First, it would tend to make the MUTCD more complex rather than less complex. Second, because both conditions would be requirements, it is not likely that any legal distinction could be made between the two. The provisions of the current MUTCD do not preclude the application of engineering considerations.
Coordination within the MUTCD regarding the use of related devices at a single location is often limited. An MUTCD user that is trying to make decisions regarding aspects of traffic control devices used at a specific location might need to reference several different portions of the MUTCD to determine the optimal combination of devices and device features. For example, to review all provisions related to crosswalks, a reader could potentially need to consider Parts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, depending on the extent to which the design involves the basic devices of signs, markings, and signals; and specialized applications such as temporary traffic control, school zones, rail grade crossings, and shared-use paths. Cross referencing within the MUTCD is usually provided as appropriate to direct users to related provisions in other Sections or Parts of the MUTCD.
The tendency for future editions of the MUTCD is likely to expand the amount of content, potentially exacerbating the difficulty in using and finding information in the MUTCD. The FHWA is seeking comment to assess options for structuring the MUTCD to make it easier to use. The following are potential options for simplifying and reorganizing the MUTCD:
a. Maintain the current structure and format of the MUTCD.
b. Reorganize the MUTCD content. Potential reorganization structures include:
i. Traffic control devices by application. Parts 2, 3, and 4 in the current MUTCD would be combined to address applications such as urban intersections, rural highways, and collector streets. These applications would address the use of signs, markings, and signals within that context. Parts 5-9 of the current MUTCD currently use this approach. Such a structure would provide most of the content needed for a given application in a consolidated location within the MUTCD.
ii. By level of mandate (
iii. By MUTCD user (
c. Relocate some of the content from the MUTCD into a companion document that has a similar structure as the MUTCD. The companion document would not contain requirements and could be revised without the rulemaking process. This restructuring would take place in a future edition, not the next edition.
i. The restructured MUTCD could include traffic control device standards that do not change such as the meaning, appearance, and other key standards.
ii. The companion document could include traffic control device guidelines that relate to selection, location, operation, and maintenance of devices. The companion document would need to be developed through a consensus-building process that involves appropriate stakeholders with expertise in the use of traffic control devices. The companion document could be revised more frequently than the MUTCD, because it would not be subject to rulemaking.
2A. In future editions, should FHWA strive to reduce the amount of explanatory language included in the MUTCD?
2B. If so, what types of explanatory language should be removed from the MUTCD?
2C. If explanatory/supplementary information is removed, should it be retained in a separate document?
2D. What organizational structure should be considered for future MUTCDs? Potential alternatives include:
a. Current structure.
b. Application information (
c. By type of information (design and applications, installation, maintenance).
d. Other.
2E. If a different format is not appropriate, what potential alternatives/tools would help users more easily find information?
2F. As we move toward more electronic use of the MUTCD through computers, tablets, and handheld devices, what additional electronic formats or tools would be useful?
There have been 10 editions of the MUTCD (1935, 1942, 1948, 1961, 1971, 1978, 1988, 2000, 2003, and 2009). Timing of revisions of individual editions has varied, with most editions having a limited number of revisions between editions.
Changes to the MUTCD are made through the rulemaking process because the manual is regulatory in nature. Major changes to the MUTCD are incorporated and added through the publication of new editions of the manual. Occasionally, there is a need to initiate special rulemakings between editions of the MUTCD to incorporate important content without waiting for the next edition of the MUTCD. These are called “Revisions” and are incorporated into the official MUTCD on FHWA's MUTCD Web site. In between editions or revisions of the MUTCD, new traffic control devices or applications can be approved for use through the official experimentation and interim approval processes, as described in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD.
Developing technical content for inclusion in the MUTCD is a deliberative process. Material associated with new traffic control devices is based on laboratory and/or in-service research evaluations that consider the human factors and performance aspects of the device, which can take several years. The results are then used to develop technical provisions related to that device that can then be considered for a rulemaking activity to amend the MUTCD. The rulemaking process involves publishing a proposed revision for public comment, analyzing the public comments submitted to the docket, and then publishing a final rule that addresses the public comments. For a new edition of the MUTCD, this process typically takes approximately 2 years from the publication of the proposed rulemaking document to the final rule. After the final rule, States have up to 2 years to adopt the new MUTCD or their State equivalent. Given this timeline, it would be impractical to publish new editions of the MUTCD with significant new content at intervals less frequent than 6 years. The next edition of the MUTCD is currently targeted for publication in late 2018, representing 9 years between new editions.
Currently, 18 States adopt the national MUTCD as their standard, without any supplement. Ten States develop their own MUTCD based on the national MUTCD. Twenty-two States and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico develop supplements to the national MUTCD.
Developing supplements to the national MUTCD and developing State-specific MUTCDs is likely to be costly to the States and introduces a potential for conflicts with the national MUTCD. State agency resources are already provided to review and comment on national MUTCD rulemaking and many State agencies support their staff member participation in the NCUTCD meetings and activities. As a result, FHWA would like to better understand why States develop their own MUTCDs or supplements. The FHWA believes that a better understanding of why States develop their own MUTCDs could better inform the development of future editions of the national MUTCD. It should be noted that FHWA is not discouraging States from developing their own MUTCDs or supplements.
The FHWA is interested in comments related to the timing of new editions of the MUTCD and intermediate revisions of the MUTCD between editions, as well as the information about the development of State MUTCDs and supplements.
3A. If the minimum practical interval between editions is 6 to 8 years, should FHWA promulgate rulemakings to issue one or more revisions that are focused on individual traffic control devices between new editions of the MUTCD?
3B. What about the national MUTCD or State law makes it necessary for some States to develop their own MUTCDs or supplements?
3C. Is there anything in the national MUTCD that could be changed to reduce the burden for States to review, revise, prepare, and adopt their own State MUTCD or supplement?
23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.85.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Proposed rule.
This rulemaking codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations the policy for restrictions on the sale or rental of sexually explicit materials on property under the jurisdiction of the DoD, or by Service members or DoD civilian employees acting in their official capacities based on 10 U.S.C. 2495b. It also establishes the Resale Activities Review Board (referred to in this rule as the “Board”).
Comments must be received by February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ryan Atkins, 703-588-0619.
Revisions to the rulemaking will be reported in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at:
10 U.S.C. 2495b prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under DoD jurisdiction. The section also requires DoD to establish the Resale Activities Review Board (the Board) to review material offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with section 2495b. Any material that is determined to be sexually explicit, as defined by section 2495b, is not offered and if materials are already on store shelves, they are removed.
This proposed rule will cost the DoD approximately $5,500 annually for the life of the rule to manage the Board. It is anticipated that the costs will recur for the life of the proposed rule varying for inflation. 10 U.S.C. 2495b authorizes Board members travel expenses while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Board. DoD implemented section 2495b by issuing DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4105.70, “Prohibition of the Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property” (the Instruction). This instruction is available on the Internet from the DoD Issuances Web site at
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This proposed rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
The Department of Defense certifies that this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
It has been certified that 32 CFR part 235 does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
Business and industry, Concessions, Government contracts, Military personnel.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 235 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 2495b.
(a) Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2495b and consistent with DoD Instruction 1330.09 “Armed Services Exchange Policy,” (available at
(1) On property under the jurisdiction of the DoD; and
(2) By Service members or DoD civilian employees acting in their official capacities.
(b) Establishes the Resale Activities Review Board (the Board) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2495b and consistent with DoD Instruction 5105.18, “DoD Intergovernmental and Intragovernmental Committee Management Program” (available at
This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purpose of this part.
It is DoD policy that:
(a) No sexually explicit material will be offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction.
(b) No Service member or DoD civilian employee, acting in an official capacity, may offer for sale, remuneration, or rental sexually explicit material to another person.
(a) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD(M&RA)), under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), and in accordance with DoD Directive 5124.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R))” (available at
(1) Monitor and ensure compliance with this part.
(2) Establish the nine-member Board.
(3) Appoint six Board members and three alternates in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2495b and paragraph (a) of § 235.6.
(4) Designate one Board member to be the Chair.
(5) Monitor the activities of the Board and ensure that the Board discharges its responsibilities as described in § 235.6.
(6) Review the Board's recommendations and make the final determination whether material is sexually explicit, as defined by 10 U.S.C. 2495b.
(b) Under the authority, direction, and control of the ASD(M&RA), the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy (DASD(MC&FP)) will:
(1) Administer the Board and provide military resale policy guidance.
(2) Publicize the Board's recommendations through the Office of the USD(P&R) public Web site.
(c) The General Counsel of the Department of Defense will provide legal advice to the Board.
(d) The Secretaries of the Military Departments will:
(1) Ensure that their respective Department's resale activities comply with this part.
(2) Each appoint one member to the Board, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2495b.
(3) Provide nominees to the ASD(M&RA) concerning the six Board members and three alternates appointed by the ASD(M&RA) in accordance with paragraph (a) of § 235.6.
(4) Promptly notify the DASD(MC&FP) of a current or projected vacancy on the Board.
(e) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau recommends to the ASD(M&RA) a senior noncommissioned officer for appointment to the Board who will represent the Senior Enlisted Advisor of the National Guard Bureau.
(a)
(1) Board members and alternates will be representatives of the following:
(i) The Senior Enlisted Advisors of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, Marine Corps, and the National Guard Bureau;
(ii) The Surgeons General of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force;
(iii) The military community and family programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
(2) Board members will be senior full-time or permanent part-time DoD civilian employees or active duty Service members not currently assigned to or employed by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, or the Marine Corps Exchange Service.
(3) The ASD(M&RA) will appoint one member to be Chair for a 2-year term; the Chair will rotate among the Military Departments.
(4) A vacancy on the Board will be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
(b)
(2) If the ASD(M&RA) determines that any material offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction is sexually explicit, such material must be withdrawn from all retail outlets where it is sold or rented and returned to distributors or suppliers. Any material that is determined to be sexually explicit will not be offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction unless the Board reconsiders the material under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, and the ASD(M&RA) decides that the material is not sexually explicit.
(c)
(2) At the conclusion of the Board's review and the ASD(M&RA) determination, the ASD(M&RA) will issue guidance to the Military Departments for exchange service headquarters, purchasing agents, and managers of retail outlets about the purchase, withdrawal, and return of sexually explicit material. The ASD(M&RA) may also provide guidance to the Military Departments for exchange service headquarters, purchasing agents, and managers of retail outlets about material that he or she has determined is not sexually explicit. Purchasing agents and managers of retail outlets will continue to follow their usual purchasing and stocking practices unless instructed otherwise by the ASD(M&RA).
(3) Any purchasing agent or manager of a retail outlet must request in writing a review from the Board and ASD(M&RA) determination about questionable material either before purchase or as soon as possible if:
(i) He or she has reason to believe that material offered or to be offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction may be sexually explicit as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2495b.
(ii) Such material is not addressed by the ASD(M&RA)'s guidance issued in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(4) Material determined to be sexually explicit by the ASD(M&RA) may be submitted to the Board for reconsideration every 5 years. If substantive changes in the publication standards occur earlier, the purchasing agent or manager of a retail outlet under DoD jurisdiction may request a review.
(5) The Board will establish procedures for the exchange services to provide material for the Board to review.
Department of Education (Department).
Request for information and notice of meetings.
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) is soliciting advice and recommendations from interested parties prior to publishing proposed regulations to implement programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (title I). Programs under title I are designed to help disadvantaged children meet high academic standards. The Secretary invites advice and recommendations concerning topics for which regulations may be helpful to assist States, school districts, and schools to implement the new law. In addition, we will convene two regional meetings at which interested parties may provide additional advice and recommendations.
We must receive your written comments on or before January 21, 2016. The dates, times, and locations of the regional meetings are listed under the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E306, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-3793 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The programs included in title I are designed to help disadvantaged children meet high academic standards. These programs include: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies (part A); State Assessment Grants (part B); Education of Migratory Children (part C); Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk (part D); and Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding (part E).
The ESSA maintained a number of requirements for, and made a number of significant changes to, the title I programs, including the following:
• Maintaining the requirement for statewide assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics in each of grades 3-8 and once in high school; and in science in each of three grade spans (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12), while adding flexibility related to locally selected high school assessments and innovative assessment systems.
• Eliminating the requirement to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP) and replacing it with a requirement for each State educational agency to develop an accountability system that—
• Includes State-designed, long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for all students and separately for each subgroup of students, on academic achievement and graduation rate, that expect greater progress from groups that are further behind;
• Annually measures, for all students and separately for each subgroup of students, the following indicators: Academic achievement (which, for high schools, may include a measure of student growth, at the State's discretion); for elementary and middle schools, a measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by the State, or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator; for high schools, the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, at the State's discretion, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; progress in achieving English language proficiency for English learners; and at least one valid, reliable, comparable, statewide indicator of school quality or student success; and
• Establishes a system of meaningfully differentiating all public schools on an annual basis that is based on all indicators in the State's accountability system and that, with respect to achievement, growth or the other academic indicator for elementary and middle schools, graduation rate, and progress in achieving English language proficiency, affords: Substantial weight to each such indicator; and, in the aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to the indicator or indicators of school quality or student success.
• Eliminating the requirement to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring based on missing AYP over a number of years and instead requiring—
• Identification of, and comprehensive, evidence-based intervention in, the lowest-performing five percent of title I schools, all public high schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent, and public schools in which one or more subgroups of students are performing at a level similar to the performance of the lowest-performing five percent of title I schools and have not improved after receiving targeted interventions for a State-determined number of years; and
• Identification of, and targeted, evidence-based intervention and support in, schools in which any subgroup of students consistently underperforms.
• Maintaining and updating the requirement that State title I plans describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in title I schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective (this term was “unqualified” in the prior version of the ESEA), out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.
• Expanding the list of elements that must be included in State and district report cards (
• Maintaining the requirement that title I, part A funds be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds, but revising the manner in which an LEA must demonstrate compliance with this requirement by requiring an LEA to demonstrate that the methodology it uses to allocate State and local funds to each title I school ensures that the school receives all the State and local funds it would receive in the absence of participation in title I.
This list is not exhaustive. Interested parties should review the statute (available at:
The Secretary invites advice and recommendations from interested parties involved with the implementation and operation of programs under title I concerning topics for which regulations or nonregulatory guidance may be necessary or helpful as States and LEAs transition from NCLB and implement the ESSA. The Secretary specifically invites advice and recommendations from State and local education administrators, parents, teachers and teacher organizations, principals, other school leaders (including charter school leaders), paraprofessionals, members of local boards of education, civil rights and other organizations representing the interests of students (including historically underserved students), representatives of the business community, and other organizations involved with the implementation and operation of title I programs.
Under the ESSA, prior to issuing proposed rules under title I on standards, assessments under section 1111(b)(2), and the requirement under section 1118 that funds be used to supplement, and not supplant, State and local funds, the Department must establish a negotiated rulemaking process.
Negotiated rulemaking can improve the substance of regulations; increase understanding of, and support for, those regulations; encourage affected parties to communicate with each other and share information, knowledge, expertise, and analysis; and discourage expensive and time-consuming litigation concerning the regulations.
The Secretary is considering conducting negotiated rulemaking on academic assessments and the requirement that funds under title I, part A be used to supplement, and not supplant, State and local funds. The Secretary specifically invites comments on these issues.
If the Secretary determines to proceed with negotiated rulemaking, the Secretary will select individuals to participate in this process from among the individuals or groups providing advice and recommendations on title I regulatory issues. The Secretary will publish a separate document in the
In addition to inviting specific comments on the issues on which the Secretary is considering conducting negotiated rulemaking, the Secretary invites comments on other regulatory issues concerning provisions under title I, including suggestions that regulations are not needed to resolve a particular issue.
The Secretary requests that each commenter identify his or her interest in education or organizational affiliation, if applicable (
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments in response to this document by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person at U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E306, Washington,
The regional meetings will be held, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time, on the following dates at the following locations:
1. January 11, 2016, at the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Barnard Auditorium, Washington, DC.
2. January 19, 2016, at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Carnesale Commons, 251 Charles E. Young Drive West, Palisades Room, Los Angeles, CA.
Individuals who would like to present comments at the regional meetings must register by sending an email to
The Department will notify registrants whether they have been selected to present comments at a regional meeting. An individual may make only one presentation at the regional meetings. If we receive more registrations than we are able to accommodate, the Department reserves the right to reject the registration of an entity or individual that is affiliated with an entity or individual that is already scheduled to present comments, and to select among registrants to ensure that a broad range of entities and individuals is allowed to present.
We will accept walk-in registrations on the day of the meeting for any remaining time slots on a first-come, first-served basis, beginning at 8:30 a.m.
The regional meetings are open to the public. Registration is not required to observe the regional meetings. However, due to capacity limitations, space may be limited. Admission to observe the meetings will be provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Space for speakers will be reserved. The regional meeting in Washington, DC will be streamed live at:
If you need a sign language interpreter or any other accommodation for the regional meeting, please notify the program contact person listed under
The Department will post transcriptions of the hearings on the Department's Web site. The Department will be livestreaming the meeting in Washington, DC, but will not be filming the meeting in Los Angeles. As these are both public meetings, speakers should be aware that they may be filmed or recorded by members of the public.
Speakers, including any prospective presenter whose request to speak is rejected due to time limitations or other considerations, may also submit written comments at the regional meetings. In addition, the Department will accept written comments through January 21, 2016. See the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for reconsideration; correction.
On December 10, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a summary of a Public Notice, 80 FR 76649, announcing that oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration must be filed by December 28, 2015, and replies to an opposition must be filed by December 21, 2015. This document corrects the due date for replies to an opposition.
Mark Montano, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0691, email:
In the
Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration must be filed on or before December 28, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before January 7, 2016.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of regulatory review; Request for comments.
NHTSA seeks comments on the economic impact of its regulations on small entities. As required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are attempting to identify rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We also request comments on ways to make these regulations easier to read and understand. The focus of this notice is rules that specifically relate to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and motor vehicle equipment.
You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket Number NHTSA-2015-0100] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• You may call Docket Management at 1-800-647-5527.
Juanita Kavalauskas, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2584, fax 202-366-3189).
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires agencies to conduct periodic reviews of final rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The purpose of the reviews is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules on a substantial number of such small entities.
On November 24, 2008, NHTSA published in the
During the Analysis Year, we will request public comment on and analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In each fall's Regulatory Agenda, we will publish the results of the analyses we completed during the previous year. For rules that have subparts, or other discrete sections of rules that do have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 months.
The section 610 review will determine whether a specific rule should be revised or revoked to lessen its impact on small entities. We will consider: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules or with state or local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. At the end of the Review Year, we will publish the results of our review. The following table shows the 10-year analysis and review schedule:
During Year 8, we will continue to conduct a preliminary assessment of the following sections of 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.212:
We are seeking comments on whether any requirements in 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.212 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of receiving Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance. Size standards established by SBA in 13 CFR 121.201 are expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small. If your business or organization is a small entity and if any of the requirements in 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.212 have a significant economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a comment to explain how and to what degree these rules affect you, the extent of the economic impact on your business or organization, and why you believe the economic impact is significant.
If the agency determines that there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it will ask for comment in a subsequent notice during the Review Year on how these impacts could be reduced without reducing safety.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998 entitled “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
In conjunction with our section 610 reviews, we will be performing plain language reviews over a ten-year period on a schedule consistent with the section 610 review schedule. We will review 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.212 determine if these regulations can be reorganized and/or rewritten to make them easier to read, understand, and use. We encourage interested persons to submit draft regulatory language that clearly and simply communicates regulatory requirements, and other recommendations, such as for putting information in tables that may make the regulations easier to use.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit one copy of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
(2) FDMS provides two basic methods of searching to retrieve dockets and docket materials that are available in the system: (a) “Quick Search” to search using a full-text search engine, or (b) “Advanced Search,” which displays various indexed fields such as the docket name, docket identification number, phase of the action, initiating office, date of issuance, document title, document identification number, type of document,
(3) You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; notice of 90-day and 12-month findings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Miami tiger beetle (
This document also serves as the 90-day and 12-month findings on a petition to list the species as an endangered or threatened species.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
(3)
Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by telephone 772-562-3909; or by facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Miami tiger beetle's biology, range, population trends, and habitat, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Taxonomy, including genetic information;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns and dispersal distances;
(d) Historical and current range or distribution, including the locations of any additional occurrences of the beetle, population levels, current and projected population trends, and viability;
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both;
(f) Survey methods appropriate to detect trends in tiger beetle population distribution and abundance; and
(g) The use of previously undocumented or altered habitat types (
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization (
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by the species and possible impacts of these activities on the species.
(5) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, including information regarding over-collection at permitted sites, evidence of collection or collection rates in general, and recreational or commercial trade and sale.
(6) The following specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Miami tiger beetle;
(b) Any occupied or unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the species and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protections that may be needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat areas, including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Because we will consider comments and all other information we receive during the public comment period, our final determination may differ from this proposal.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. A public hearing will be held on January 13, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Miami Dade College—Kendall Campus, Building 6000, 11011 SW 104th Street, Miami, Florida 33176-3396.
In accordance with our joint policy with the National Marine Fisheries Service on peer review published in the
In 2013, we began assessing the status and threats to the Miami tiger beetle and considering the need to add the beetle to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. On December 11, 2014, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Miami Blue Chapter of the North American Butterfly Association, South Florida Wildlands Association, Tropical Audubon Society, Sandy Koi, Al Sunshine, and Chris Wirth requesting that the Miami tiger beetle be emergency listed as endangered, and that critical habitat be designated under the Act (CBD
The Miami tiger beetle is an elongate beetle with an oval shape and bulging eyes, and is one of the smallest (6.5-9.0 millimeters (mm) (0.26-0.35 inches (in))) tiger beetles in the United States (Knisley 2015a, p. 3; 2015b, p. 3). The underside of the abdomen is orange to orange-brown in color like many other
As is typical of other tiger beetles, adult Miami tiger beetles are active diurnal predators that use their keen vision to detect movement of small arthropods and run quickly to capture prey with their well-developed jaws (mandibles). Observations by various entomologists indicate small arthropods, especially ants, are the most common prey for tiger beetles. Choate (1996, p. 2) indicated ants were the most common prey of tiger beetles in Florida. Willis (1967, pp. 196-197) lists over 30 kinds of insects from many families as prey for tiger beetles, and scavenging is also common in some species (Knisley and Schultz 1997, pp. 39, 103).
Tiger beetle larvae have an elongate, white, grub-like body and a dark or metallic head with large mandibles. Larvae are sedentary sit-and-wait predators occurring in permanent burrows flush with the ground surface (Essig 1926, p. 372; Essig 1942, p. 532; Pearson 1988, pp. 131-132). When feeding, larvae position themselves at the burrow mouth and quickly strike at and seize small arthropods that pass within a few centimeters (cm) of the burrow mouth (Essig 1942, pp. 531-532; Pearson 1988, p. 132). An enlarged dorsal portion of the fifth abdominal segment, with two pairs of hooks, anchors the larvae into its permanent burrow while the upper portion of the body extends to capture prey (Pearson 1988, p. 127; Choate 1996, p. 2). Larvae prey on small arthropods, similar to adults.
The Miami tiger beetle (
The four species in the
The Miami tiger beetle was first documented from collections made in 1934, by Frank Young (see
The Miami tiger beetle is distinguished from the three other
Although color is often variable and problematic as a sole diagnostic trait in tiger beetles, it is useful when combined with other factors (Brzoska
In addition, the Miami tiger beetle has a narrower, restricted range where its distribution does not overlap with the other three species in the
Lastly, the Miami tiger beetle has a broader period of adult activity than the “late spring to mid-summer” cycle that is observed in the scrub tiger beetle (Brzoska
Genetic analyses for the Miami tiger beetle to date are limited to one nonpeer-reviewed study, and available techniques (
The most current peer-reviewed scientific information confirms that
The historical range of the Miami tiger beetle is not completely known, and available information is limited based on the single historical observation prior to the species' rediscovery in 2007. It was initially documented from collections made in 1934, by Frank Young within a very restricted range in the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge, in a region known as the Northern Biscayne Pinelands. The Northern Biscayne Pinelands, which extend from the city of North Miami south to approximately SW 216th Street, are characterized by extensive sandy pockets of quartz sand, a feature that is necessary for the Miami tiger beetle (see
The Miami tiger beetle was thought to be extinct until 2007, when a population was discovered at the Richmond Heights area of south Miami, Florida, known as the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Brzoska
The Miami tiger beetle is extremely rare and only known to occur in two separate locations within pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County. The Richmond population occurs on four contiguous parcels within the Richmond Pine Rocklands: Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, CSTARS, and USCG. The second location, which was recently identified, is within approximately 5.0 km (3.1 mi) of the Richmond population and separated by urban development (D. Cook, 2015, pers. comm.).
Miami tiger beetles within the four contiguous occupied parcels in the Richmond population are within close proximity to each other. There are apparent connecting patches of habitat and few or no barriers (contiguous and border each other on at least one side) between parcels. Given the contiguous habitat with few barriers to dispersal, frequent adult movement among individuals is likely, and the occupied Richmond parcels probably represent a single population (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Information regarding Miami tiger beetles at the new location is very limited, but beetles here are within approximately 5.0 km (3.1 mi) of the Richmond population and separated by ample urban development, which likely represents a significant barrier to dispersal, and the Miami tiger beetles at the new location are currently considered a second population.
The Richmond population occurs within an approximate 2 square kilometer (km
Based on surveys to date, the Miami tiger beetle is found exclusively on the Miami Rock Ridge within the urbanized areas of Miami-Dade County and outside the boundaries of ENP (Knisley 2015a, pp. 6-7). This area extends from the ENP boundary, near the Park entrance road, northeast approximately 72 km (45 miles (mi)) to its end near North Miami. The pine rocklands are a unique ecosystem found on limestone substrates in three areas in Florida: The Miami Rock Ridge, the Florida Keys, and the Big Cypress Swamp. The pine rocklands differ to some degree between and within these three areas with regard to substrate (
Pine rockland occurs on relatively flat terrain, approximately 2.0-7.0 m (6.5-23.0 ft) above sea level with an average elevation of approximately 3.0 m (9.8 ft) (Service 1999, p. 3-167; FNAI 2010, p. 62). On the Miami Rock Ridge, oolitic limestone is at or very near the surface, and solution holes occasionally form where the surface limestone is dissolved by organic acids. There is typically very little soil development, consisting primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient sand, marl, clayey loam, and organic debris found in solution holes, depressions, and crevices on the limestone surface (FNAI 2010, p. 62). However, sandy pockets can be found at the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge, beginning from approximately the city of North Miami Beach and extending south to approximately to SW 216 Street (Service 1999, p. 3-162). These microhabitat parameters (
Pine rockland has an open canopy of South Florida slash pine, generally with multiple age classes. The diverse, open shrub and subcanopy layer is composed of more than 100 species of palms and hardwoods (FNAI 2010, p. 1), most derived from the tropical flora of the West Indies (FNAI 2010, p. 1). These vegetative layers and habitat conditions (
Grasses, forbs, and ferns make up a diverse herbaceous layer ranging from mostly continuous in areas with more soil development and little exposed rock to sparse where more extensive outcroppings of rock occur. Typical herbaceous species include
Pine rockland habitat is maintained by regular fire, and is susceptible to other natural disturbances such as
Presently, prescribed fire must be periodically introduced into pine rocklands to sustain community structure, prevent invasion by woody species, maintain high herbaceous diversity (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, pp. 5-6; FNAI 2010, p. 3), and prevent succession to rockland hammock. The amount of woody understory growth is directly related to the length of time since the last fire (FNAI 2010, p. 3). Herbaceous diversity declines with time since the last fire. The ecotone between pine rockland and rockland hammock is abrupt when regular fire is present in the system. However, when fire is removed, the ecotone becomes more gradual and subtle as hammock hardwoods encroach into the pineland (FNAI 2010, p. 3).
The lifecycle of the Miami tiger beetle occurs entirely within the pine rocklands. Adult Miami tiger beetles require patches of open sandy areas within the pine rocklands for behavioral thermoregulation (avoiding or seeking sources of heat to regulate body temperature) so that they can successfully capture small arthropod prey (Knisley 2015a, p. 8). They are visual hunters that use keen eyesight to locate and rapid movement to capture small arthropods. Females oviposit (lay eggs) in these same bare patches (Knisley 2015a, p. 8). The larvae, which are sit-and-wait predators, can capture prey and complete development in sandy areas, without interference from encroaching vegetation (Knisley 2015a, p. 8). At most of the remaining pine rockland sites on the Miami Rock Ridge, bare patches of sandy soil are absent or limited (URS
Microhabitat conditions are not completely understood, due in part to few known occurrences and limited surveys at some parcels. At the Zoo Miami parcel, which was most thoroughly surveyed, adults and larvae were restricted to a small number of scattered patches of bare ground. The patches were small, typically 2 to 6 square meters (m
In tiger beetles, the adult female determines the habitat and microhabitat of the larva by the selection of an oviposition (egg-laying) site (Knisley and Schultz 1997, p. 28). Generally, the same microhabitats are occupied by both larvae and adults. Females will often touch the soil with the antennae, bite it, and even dig trial holes, possibly to determine suitable soil characteristics (Willis 1967, p. 194) before placing a single egg into a shallow oviposition burrow (1 to 2 cm (0.39 to 0.79 in)) dug into the soil with the ovipositor. The egg hatches, apparently after sufficient soil wetting, and the first instar larvae digs a burrow at the site of oviposition. Development in tiger beetles includes three larval instars followed by a pupal and adult stage. In most species of tiger beetles, development requires 2 years, but can range from 1 to 4 or more years depending on climate and food availability. The life cycle of most tiger beetles in the United States follows either a summer or spring-fall adult activity pattern (Knisley and Schultz 1997, pp. 19-21). These life cycles patterns all indicate the length of the adult flight season is typically 2 to 3 months, but the life span of individual adults is likely to be less.
Based on available information, the Miami tiger beetle appears to have only limited dispersal abilities. Among tiger beetles there is a general trend of decreasing flight distance with decreasing body size (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 13). The Miami tiger beetle is one of the smallest tiger beetles (less than half an inch in length); it is likely to be a weak flier based on its size and the limited flight distance of the closely related Highlands tiger beetle (usually flying only 5-10 m (16.4-32.8 ft)) (Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 39). Additionally, tiger beetle species in woodland, scrub, or dune habitats seem to disperse less than water edge species, and this could further explain the apparent limited dispersal of the species (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 13). Evidence for longer distance dispersal has been reported for some tiger beetle species, but these are generally larger, coastal species that occupy more widespread habitats and use frequent winds or coastal storms to aid in dispersal. For example, a dispersal distance of 160 km (99 mi) was reported for the s-banded tiger beetle (
As a group, tiger beetles occupy ephemeral habitats where local extinction from habitat loss or degradation is common, so dispersal to establish new populations in distant habitat patches is a likely survival strategy for most species (Knisley 2015b, p. 10). Limited dispersal capabilities and other constraints (
Results of monthly surveys at the Zoo Miami parcel in 2009, and additional late summer and fall surveys through 2014, indicated the adult flight period for the Miami tiger beetle ranges from May 15 through October 17 (Knisley 2015a, p. 5). No adults were found during an April 18 survey, meaning emergence had not yet occurred (Knisley 2015a, p. 6). In 2009, only two adults were found on September 2,
There is no clear explanation for the long adult flight period of the Miami tiger beetle, but it is possible that there are two cohorts of Miami tiger beetle adults emerging during this period (Knisley 2015a, p. 6). Adults emerging in May and June would mate, oviposit, and produce larvae that could develop and emerge as a second cohort of adults in late July and August as the earlier cohort of adults were dying off. Larvae from these later active adults would develop through fall and winter, emerging as adults the following May. The rapid completion of development within 2 months would not be unusual given the small size of this species and the continually warm temperatures in south Florida (Knisley 2015a, p. 6). Rate of development is likely increased during the summer rainy season when prey is more abundant (Knisley 2015a, p. 6).
The visual index count is the standard survey method that has been used to determine presence and abundance of the Miami tiger beetle. Using this method, surveyors either walk slowly or stand still in appropriate open habitats, while taking a count of any beetle observations. Although the index count has been the most commonly used method to estimate the population size of adult tiger beetles, various studies have demonstrated it significantly underestimates actual numbers present. As noted earlier, several studies comparing various methods for estimating adult tiger beetle abundance have found numbers present at a site are typically 2 to 3 times higher than that produced by the index count (Knisley and Schultz 1997, p. 15; Knisley 2009, entire; Knisley and Hill 2013, pp. 27, 29; S. Spomer, 2014, pers. comm.). Numbers are underestimated because tiger beetles are elusive, and some may fly off before being detected while others may be obscured by vegetation in some parts of the survey area. Even in defined linear habitats like narrow shorelines where there is no vegetation and high visibility, index counts produce estimates that are 2 to 3 times lower than the numbers present (Knisley and Schultz 1997, p. 152).
Information on the Richmond population size is limited because survey data are inconsistent, and some sites are difficult to access due to permitting, security, and liability concerns. Of the occupied sites, the most thoroughly surveyed site for adult and larval Miami tiger beetles is the Zoo Miami parcel (over 30 survey dates from 2008 to 2014) (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Adult beetle surveys at the CSTARS and USCG parcels have been infrequent, and access was not permitted in 2012 through early summer of 2014. In October 2014, access to both the CSTARS and USCG parcels was permitted, and no beetles were observed during October 2014 surveys. As noted earlier, Miami tiger beetles were recently found at Larry and Penny Thompson Park (D. Cook, 2015, pers. comm.); however, thorough surveys at this location have not been conducted. For details on index counts and larval survey results from the three surveyed parcels (Zoo Miami, USCG, and CSTARS), see Table 2 in
Raw index counts found adults in four areas (Zoo A, Zoo B, Zoo C, and Zoo D) of the Zoo Miami parcel. Two of these patches (Zoo C and Zoo D) had fewer than 10 adults during several surveys at each. Zoo A, the more northern site where adults were first discovered, had peak counts of 17 and 22 adults in 2008 and 2009, but declined to 0 and 2 adults in six surveys from 2011 to 2014, despite thorough searches on several dates throughout the peak of the adult flight season (Knisley 2015, pp. 9-10). Zoo B, located south of Zoo A, had peak counts of 17 and 20 adults from 2008 to 2009, 36 to 42 adults from 2011 to 2012, and 13 and 18 adults in 2014 (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9-10). These surveys at Zoo A and Zoo B also recorded the number of suitable habitat patches (occupied and unoccupied). Surveys between 2008 and 2014 documented a decline in both occupied and unoccupied open habitat patches. Knisley (2015, pp. 9-10) documented a decrease at Zoo A from 7 occupied of 23 patches in 2008, to 1 occupied of 13 patches in 2014. At Zoo B, there was a decrease from 19 occupied of 26 patches in 2008, to 7 occupied of 13 patches in 2014 (Knisley 2015, pp. 9-10). Knisley (2015a, p. 10) suggested this decline in occupied and unoccupied patches is likely the result of the vegetation that he observed encroaching into the open areas that are required by the beetle.
At the CSTARS site, the only survey during peak season was on August 20, 2010, when much of the potential habitat was checked. This survey produced a raw count of 38 adults in 11 scattered habitat patches, with 1 to 9 adults per patch, mostly in the western portion of the site (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Three surveys at the USCG included only a portion of the potential habitat and produced raw adult counts of two, four, and two adults in three separate patches from 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Additional surveys of the CSTARS and the USCG parcels on October 14 to 15, 2014, surveyed areas where adults were found in previous surveys and some new areas; however, no adults were observed. The most likely reasons for the absence of adults were because counts even during the peak of the flight season were low (thus detection would be lower off-peak), and mid-October is recognized as the end of the flight season (Knisley 2014a, p. 2). As was noted for the Zoo Miami sites, habitat patches at the CSTARS and USCG parcels that previously supported adults seemed smaller due to increased vegetation growth, and consequently these patches appeared less suitable for the beetle than in the earlier surveys (Knisley 2015a, p. 10).
Surveys of adult numbers over the years, especially the frequent surveys in 2009, did not indicate a bimodal adult activity pattern (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Knisley (2015a, p. 10) suggests that actual numbers of adult Miami tiger beetles could be 2 to 3 times higher than indicated by the raw index counts. Several studies comparing methods for estimating population size of several tiger beetle species, including the Highlands tiger beetle, found total numbers present were usually more than two times that indicated by the index counts (Knisley and Hill 2013, pp. 27-28). The underestimates from raw index counts are likely to be comparable or greater for the Miami tiger beetle, because of its small size and occurrence in small open patches where individuals can be obscured by vegetation around the edges, making detection especially difficult (Knisley 2015a, p. 10).
Surveys for larvae at the Zoo Miami parcel (Zoos A and B) were conducted in several years during January when lower temperatures would result in a higher level of larval activity and open burrows (Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 38) (see Table 2 in
Surveys for the beetle's presence outside of its currently known occupied range found no Miami tiger beetles at a total of 42 sites (17 pine rockland sites and 25 scrub sites) throughout Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9, 41-45). The absence of the Miami tiger beetle from sites north of Miami-Dade was probably because it never ranged beyond pine rockland habitat of Miami-Dade County and into scrub habitats to the north (Knisley 2015a, p. 9). Sites without the Miami tiger beetle in Miami-Dade County mostly had vegetation that was too dense and were lacking the open patches of sandy soil that are needed by adults for oviposition and larval habitat (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9, 41-45).
The Miami tiger beetle is considered as one of two tiger beetles in the United States most in danger of extinction (Knisley
In summary, the overall population size of the Miami tiger beetle is exceptionally small and viability is uncertain. Based upon the index count data to date, it appears that the two populations exist in extremely low numbers (Knisley 2015a, pp. 2, 10-11, 24).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
The Miami tiger beetle is threatened by habitat loss and modification caused by changes in land use and inadequate land management, including the lack of prescribed burns and vegetation (native and nonnative) encroachment (discussed separately below). Habitat loss and modification are expected to continue and increase, affecting any populations on private lands as well as those on protected lands that depend on management actions (
The Miami tiger beetle has experienced substantial destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat and range (Brzoska
The two known populations of the Miami tiger beetle occur within the Richmond Pine Rocklands, on parcels of publicly or privately owned lands that are partially developed, yet retain some undeveloped pine rockland habitat. In the 1940s, the Naval Air Station Richmond was built largely on what is currently the Zoo Miami parcel. Much of the currently occupied Miami tiger beetle habitat on the Zoo Miami parcel was scraped for the creation of runways and blimp hangars (Wirth 2015, entire). The fact that this formerly scraped pine rockland area now provides suitable habitat for the Miami tiger beetle demonstrates the restoration potential of disturbed pine rockland habitat (Possley 2015, entire; Wirth 2015, entire).
Any current known or unknown, extant Miami tiger beetle populations or potentially suitable habitat that may occur on private lands or non-conservation public lands, such as elsewhere within the Richmond Pine Rocklands or surrounding pine rocklands, are vulnerable to habitat loss. Miami-Dade County leads the State in gross urban density at 15.45 people per acre (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 1, 13), and development and human population growth are expected to continue in the future. By 2025, Miami-Dade County is predicted to exceed a population size of over 3 million people (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 20). This predicted economic and population growth will further increase demands for land, water, and other resources, which will undoubtedly impact the survival and recovery of the Miami tiger beetle.
Remaining habitat is at risk of additional losses and degradation. Of high and specific concern are proposed development projects within the Richmond Pine Rocklands (CBD
The Service notified Miami-Dade County in a December 2, 2014, letter about proposed development concerns with potential impacts to listed, candidate, and imperiled species, including the Miami tiger beetle. Plans for the proposed development on the Zoo Miami and USCG parcels have yet to be finalized, so potential impacts to the Miami tiger beetle and its habitat cannot be fully assessed. However, based upon available information provided to date, it appears that the proposed development will impact suitable or potentially suitable beetle habitat.
In July 2014, the Service became aware of another proposed development project on privately owned lands within the Richmond Pine Rocklands. In a July 15, 2014, letter to the proposed developer, the Service named the Miami tiger beetle (along with other federally listed and proposed species and habitats) as occurring within the project footprint, and expressed concern over indirect impacts (
Given the species' highly restricted range and uncertain viability, any additional losses are significant. Additional development might further limit the ability to conduct prescribed burns or other beneficial management activities that are necessary to maintain the open areas within pine rockland habitat that are required by the beetle. The pattern of public and private ownership presents an urban wildland interface, which is a known constraint for implementing prescribed fire in similar pine rockland habitats (
In summary, given the Miami tiger beetle's highly restricted range and uncertain viability, any additional losses of habitat within its current range present substantial threats to its survival and recovery.
The threat of habitat destruction or modification is further exacerbated by a lack of adequate fire management (Brzoska
Miami-Dade County has implemented various conservation measures, such as burning in a mosaic pattern and on a small scale, during prescribed burns, to help conserve the Miami tiger beetles and other imperiled species and their habitats (J. Maguire, 2010, pers. comm.). Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation staff has burned several of its conservation lands on fire return intervals of approximately 3 to 7 years. However, implementation of the county's prescribed fire program has been hampered by a shortage of resources, logistical difficulties, smoke management, and public concern related to burning next to residential areas (Snyder
Despite efforts to use prescribed fire as a management tool in pine rockland habitat, sites with the Miami tiger beetle are not burned as frequently as needed to maintain suitable beetle habitat. Most of the occupied beetle habitat at Miami-Dade County's Zoo Miami parcel was last burned in January and October of 2007; by 2010, there was noticeable vegetation encroachment into suitable habitat patches (Knisley 2011a, p. 36). The northern portion (Zoo A) of the Zoo Miami site was burned in November 2014 (Knisley 2015c, p. 3). Several occupied locations at the CSTARS
Alternatives to prescribed fire, such as mechanical removal of woody vegetation are not as ecologically effective as fire. Mechanical treatments do not replicate fire's ability to recycle nutrients to the soil, a process that is critical to many pine rockland species (URS 2007, p. 39). To prevent organic soils from developing, uprooted woody debris requires removal, which adds to the required labor. The use of mechanical equipment can also damage soils and inadvertently include the removal or trampling of other non-target species or critical habitat (URS 2007, p. 39).
Nonnative plants have significantly affected pine rocklands (Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 15, 72; Bradley and Gann 2005, page numbers not applicable; Bradley and van der Heiden 2013, pp. 12-16). As a result of human activities, at least 277 taxa of nonnative plants have invaded pine rocklands throughout south Florida (Service 1999, p. 3-175).
Nonnative, invasive plants compete with native plants for space, light, water, and nutrients, and make habitat conditions unsuitable for the Miami tiger beetle, which responds positively to open conditions. Invasive nonnatives also affect the characteristics of a fire when it does occur. Historically, pine rocklands had an open, low understory where natural fires remained patchy with low temperature intensity. Dense infestations of
Management of nonnative, invasive plants in pine rocklands in Miami-Dade County is further complicated because the vast majority of pine rocklands are small, fragmented areas bordered by urban development. Fragmentation results in an increased proportion of “edge” habitat, which in turn has a variety of effects, including changes in microclimate and community structure at various distances from the edge (Margules and Pressey 2000, p. 248); altered spatial distribution of fire (greater fire frequency in areas nearer the edge) (Cochrane 2001, pp. 1518-1519); and increased pressure from nonnative, invasive plants and animals that may out-compete or disturb native plant populations. Additionally, areas near managed pine rockland that contains nonnative species can act as a seed source of nonnatives, allowing them to continue to invade the surrounding pine rockland (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 13).
In 2005, the Service funded the Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) to facilitate restoration and management of privately owned pine rockland habitats in Miami-Dade County. This initiative included prescribed burns, nonnative plant control, light debris removal, hardwood management, reintroduction of pines where needed, and development of management plans. The Pine Rockland Initiative includes 10-year cooperative agreements between participating landowners and the Service/IRC to ensure restored areas will be managed appropriately during that time. Although most of these objectives regarding nonnative plant control, creation of fire breaks, removal of excessive fuel loads, and management plans have been achieved, IRC has not been able to conduct the desired prescribed burns, due to logistical difficulties as discussed above (see “Land Management”). IRC has recently resolved some of the challenges regarding contractor availability for prescribed burns and the Service has extended IRC's funding period through August 2016. Results from anticipated fire management restoration activities will be available in the fall of 2016.
Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG), with the support of various Federal, State, local, and nonprofit organizations, has established the “Connect to Protect Network.” The objective of this program is to encourage widespread participation of citizens to create corridors of healthy pine rocklands by planting stepping stone gardens and rights-of-way with native pine rockland species, and restoring isolated pine rockland fragments. Although these projects may serve as valuable components toward the conservation of pine rockland species and habitat, they are dependent on continual funding, as well as participation from private landowners, both of which may vary through time.
We have identified a number of threats to the habitat of the Miami tiger beetle, which have occurred in the past, are impacting the species now, and will continue to impact the species in the future. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and associated pressures from increased human population, are major threats; these threats are expected to continue, placing the species at greater risk. The species' occurrence on pine rocklands that are partially protected from development (see “Local” under Factor D, below) tempers some impacts, yet the threat of further loss and fragmentation of habitat remains. Various conservation programs are in place, and while these help to reduce some threats of habitat loss and modification, these programs are limited in nature. In general, available resources and land management activities (
Rare beetles, butterflies, and moths are highly prized by collectors. Tiger beetles are the subject of more intense collecting and study than any other
Collection is serious threat to the Miami tiger beetle due to extreme rarity (a factor that increases demand by collectors) and vulnerability (
The recent description of the species did not disclose the exact locations of occurrence, due to concerns with collection (Brzoska
Markets currently exist for tiger beetles. Specimens of two Florida tiger beetles, the Highlands tiger beetle, a federal candidate species, and the scrub tiger beetle are regularly offered for sale or trade through online insect dealers (The Bugmaniac 2015 and eBay 2015). Considering the recent rediscovery of the Miami tiger beetle and concerns regarding its continued existence, the desirability of this species to private collectors is expected to increase, which may lead to similar markets and increased demand.
Another reason it is not possible to assess actual impacts from collection is that known occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle are not regularly monitored. Two known occurrences on the USCG and CSTARS parcels are gated and accessible only by permit, so collection from these sites is unlikely unless authorized by the property owners. However, other occupied and potential habitats at neighboring and surrounding areas are much more accessible. Risk of collection is concerning at any location and is more likely at less secure sites. Collection potential at Zoo Miami and other accessible sites is high, in part because it is not entirely gated and only periodically patrolled (B. Knisley, 2014b, pers. comm.). Most of the remaining pine rockland habitat outside of ENP in Miami Dade County is owned by the County or in private ownership and not regularly monitored or patrolled.
We consider collection to be a significant threat to the Miami tiger beetle in light of the few known remaining populations, low abundance, and highly restricted range. Even limited collection from the remaining populations could have deleterious effects on reproductive and genetic viability of the species and could contribute to its extinction. Removal of adults early in the flight season or prior to oviposition can be particularly damaging, as it further reduces potential for successful reproduction. A population may be reduced to below sustainable numbers (Allee effect) by removal of females, reducing the probability that new occurrences will be founded. Small and isolated occurrences in poor habitat may be at greatest risk (see Factor E discussion, below) as these might not be able to withstand additional losses. Collectors may be unable to recognize when they are depleting occurrences below the thresholds of survival or recovery (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 162-165).
With regard to scientific research, we do not believe that general techniques used to date have had negative impacts on the species or its habitat. Visual index surveys and netting for identification purposes have been performed during scientific research and conservation efforts with the potential to disturb or injure individuals or damage habitat. Limited collection as part of laboratory rearing studies or taxonomic verification has occurred at some sites, with work authorized by permits. Based on the extreme rarity of the species, various collecting techniques (
Collection interest in tiger beetles, especially rare species, is high, and markets currently exist. While it is not possible to quantify the impacts of collection on the Miami tiger beetle, collection of the Highlands tiger beetle has been documented in large numbers, and collection is currently occurring. The risk of collection of the Miami tiger beetle from both occupied and other potential habitat is high, as some sites are generally accessible and not monitored or patrolled. Due to the few remaining populations, low abundance, and restricted range, we have determined that collection is a significant threat to the species and could potentially occur at any time. Even limited collection from the remaining populations could have negative effects on reproductive and genetic viability of the species and could contribute to its extinction.
There is no evidence of disease or pathogens affecting the Miami tiger
Known predators of adult tiger beetles include birds, lizards, spiders, and especially robber flies (family Asilidae) (Pearson
Most predators of adult tiger beetles are opportunistic, feeding on a variety of available prey, and therefore probably have only a limited impact on tiger beetle populations. However, predators, and especially parasites, of larvae are more common and some attack only tiger beetles. Ants are regarded as important predators on tiger beetles, and although not well studied, they have been reported having significant impact on first instar larvae of some Arizona tiger beetles (
Available literature indicates that the most important tiger beetle natural enemies are tiphiid wasps and bombyliid flies, which parasitize larvae (Knisley and Schultz 1997, pp. 53-57). The wasps enter the larvae burrows, and paralyze and lay an egg on the larvae. The resulting parasite larva consumes the host tiger beetle larva. Bombyliid flies (genus
Potential impacts from predators or parasites to the Miami tiger beetle are unknown. Given the small size of the Miami tiger beetle's two populations, the species is likely vulnerable to predation and parasitism.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species. . . .” In relation to Factor D, we interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, plans, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
The Miami tiger beetle currently has no Federal protective status and has limited regulatory protection in its known occupied and suitable habitat. The species is not known to occur on National Wildlife Refuge or National Park land. The Miami tiger beetle is known to occur on USCG lands within the Richmond Pinelands Complex, and there are limited protection for the species on this property; any USCG actions or decisions that may have an effect on the environment would require consideration and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Miami tiger beetle is not currently listed as endangered or threatened by the State of Florida, so there are no existing regulations designated to protect it. The Miami tiger beetle is recognized as a species of greatest conservation need by the FWC (FWC 2012, p. 89). Species of greatest conservation need designation is part of the State's strategy to recognize and seek funding opportunities for research and conservation of these species, particularly through the State Wildlife Grants program. The list is extensive and, to date, we are unaware of any dedicated funding from this program for the beetle. The Miami tiger beetle is not known to occur on lands owned by the State of Florida; however, not all State-owned pine rockland parcels have been adequately surveyed. It is possible that some State-owned parcels do provide potentially suitable habitat, and support occurrences of, the Miami tiger beetle.
In 1984, section 24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County established regulation of County-designated Natural Forested Communities (NFCs), which include both pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks. These regulations were placed on specific properties throughout the county by an act of the Board of County Commissioners in an effort to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. The Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) has regulatory authority over NFCs, and is charged with enforcing regulations that provide partial protection on the Miami Rock Ridge. Miami-Dade Code typically allows up to 20 percent of a pine rockland designated as NFC to be developed, and requires that the remaining 80 percent be placed under a perpetual covenant. In certain circumstances, where the landowner can demonstrate that limiting development to 20 percent does not allow for “reasonable use” of the property, additional development may be approved. NFC landowners are also required to obtain an NFC permit for any work within the boundaries of the NFC on their property. The NFC program is responsible for ensuring that NFC permits are issued in accordance with the limitations and requirements of the code and that appropriate NFC preserves are established and maintained in conjunction with the issuance of an NFC permit. The NFC program currently regulates approximately 600 pine rockland or pine rockland/hammock properties, comprising approximately 1,200 ha (3,000 ac) of habitat (J. Joyner, 2013, pers. comm.). When RER discovers unpermitted activities, it takes appropriate enforcement action, and seeks restoration when possible. Because these regulations allows for development of pine rockland habitat, and because unpermitted development and destruction of pine rockland continues to occur, the regulations are not fully effective at protecting against loss of Miami tiger beetles or their potential habitat.
Under Miami-Dade County ordinance (section 26-1), a permit is required to conduct scientific research (rule 9) on county environmental lands. In addition, rule 8 of this ordinance provides for the preservation of habitat within County parks or areas operated by the Parks and Recreation Department. The scientific research permitting effectively allows the County to monitor and manage the level of scientific research and collection of the Miami tiger beetle, and the preservation of pine rockland habitat benefits the beetle.
Fee Title Properties: In 1990, Miami-Dade County voters approved a 2-year property tax to fund the acquisition, protection, and maintenance of environmentally endangered lands (EEL). The EEL Program identifies and secures these lands for preservation. Under this program to date, Miami-Dade County has acquired a total of approximately 255 ha (630 ac) of pine rocklands. In addition, approximately 445 ha (1,100 ac) of pine rocklands are owned by the Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department and managed by the EEL Program, including some of the largest remaining areas of pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge outside of ENP (
There are some regulatory mechanisms currently in place to protect the Miami tiger beetle and its habitat on non-Federal lands. However, there are no Federal regulatory protections for the Miami tiger beetle, other than the limited protections afforded for listed species and critical habitat that co-occur with the Miami tiger beetle. While local regulations provide some protection, they are generally not fully effective (
The Miami tiger beetle is vulnerable to extinction due to its severely reduced range, the fact that only two small populations remain, and the species' relative isolation.
Demographic stochasticity refers to random variability in survival or reproduction among individuals within a population (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Demographic stochasticity can have a significant impact on population viability for populations that are small, have low fecundity, and are short-lived. In small populations, reduced reproduction or die-offs of a certain age-class will have a significant effect on the whole population. Although of only minor consequence to large populations, this randomly occurring variation in individuals becomes an important issue for small populations.
Environmental stochasticity is the variation in birth and death rates from one season to the next in response to weather, disease, competition, predation, or other factors external to the population (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). For example, drought or predation, in combination with a low population year, could result in extirpation. The origin of the environmental stochastic event can be natural or human-caused.
In general, tiger beetles that have been regularly monitored consistently exhibit extreme fluctuations in population size, often apparently due to climatic or other habitat factors that affect recruitment, population growth, and other population parameters. In 20 or more years of monitoring, most populations of the northeastern beach and puritan tiger beetles (
Dispersal and movement of the Miami tiger beetle is unknown, but is considered to be very limited. A limited mark-recapture study with the closely related Highlands tiger beetle found that adult beetles moved no more than 150 m (490 ft), usually flying only 5-10 m (16-33 ft) at a time (Knisley and Hill 2013). Generally, tiger beetles are known to easily move around, so exchange of individuals among separated sites will commonly occur if there are habitat connections or if the sites are within dispersal range—which is not the case with the population structure of the Miami tiger beetle. Species in woodland, scrub, or dune habitats also seem to disperse less than water-edge species (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 13). Among tiger beetles, there is a general trend of decreasing flight distance with decreasing body size (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 13). The Miami tiger beetle has a small body size. Given these factors, dispersal may be limited for the Miami tiger beetle.
Small, isolated population size was listed as one of several of the threats in the petition received to list the Miami tiger beetle (CBD
Pesticides used in and around pine rockland habitat are a potential threat to the Miami tiger beetle through direct exposure to adults and larvae, secondary exposure from insect prey, overall reduction in availability of adult and larval prey, or any combination of these factors. The use of pesticides for agriculture and mosquito control presents potential risks to nontarget insects, especially imperiled insects (EPA 2002, p. 32; 2006a, p. 58; 2006b, p. 44). The negative effect of insecticides on several tiger beetle species was suggested by Nagano (1980, p. 34) and Stamatov (1972, p. 78), although impacts from pesticides do not appear to be well studied in tiger beetles.
Efforts to control mosquitoes and other insect pests in Florida have increased as human activity and population size have increased. To control mosquito populations, organophosphate (naled) and pyrethroid (permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control districts throughout south Florida, including Miami-Dade County. These compounds have been characterized as being highly toxic to nontarget insects by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002, p. 32; 2006a, p. 58; 2006b, p. 44). The use of such pesticides (applied using both aerial and ground-based methods) for mosquito control presents a potential risk to the Miami tiger beetle.
In order for mosquito control pesticides to be effective, they must make direct contact with mosquitoes. For this to happen, pesticides are applied using methods to promote drift through the air, so as to increase the potential for contact with their intended target organism. Truck-based permethrin application methods are expected to produce a swath of suspended pesticides approximately 91 m (300 ft) wide (Prentiss 2007, p. 4). The extent of pesticide drift from this swath is dependent on several factors, including wind speed, wind direction, and vegetation density. Hennessey and Habeck (1989, pp. 1-22; 1991, pp. 1-68) and Hennessey
More recently, Pierce (2009, pp. 1-17) monitored naled and permethrin deposition following mosquito control application. Permethrin, applied by truck, was found to drift considerable distances from target areas, with residues that persisted for weeks. Permethrin was detected at concentrations lethal to three butterfly species at a distance of approximately 227 m (745 ft) away from targeted truck routes. Naled, applied by plane, was also found to drift into nontarget areas, but was much less persistent, exhibiting a half-life (time for half of the naled applied to chemically break down) of approximately 6 hours. To expand this work, Pierce (2011, pp. 6-11) conducted an additional deposition study in 2010, focusing on permethrin drift from truck spraying, and again documented low but measurable amounts of permethrin in nontarget areas. In 2009, Bargar (2012, p. 3) conducted two field trials that detected significant naled residues at locations within nontarget areas up to 366 m (1,200 ft) from the edge of zones targeted for aerial applications. After this discovery, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District recalibrated the on-board model (Wingman, which provides flight guidance and flow rates). Naled deposition was reduced in some
In addition to mosquito control chemicals entering nontarget areas, the toxic effects of such chemicals to nontarget organisms have also been documented. Lethal effects on nontarget moths and butterflies have been attributed to fenthion and naled in both south Florida and the Florida Keys (Emmel 1991, pp. 12-13; Eliazar and Emmel 1991, pp. 18-19; Eliazar 1992, pp. 29-30). Zhong
Based on these studies, it can be concluded that mosquito control activities that involve the use of both aerial and ground-based spraying methods have the potential to deliver pesticides in quantities sufficient to cause adverse effects to nontarget species in both target and nontarget areas. Pesticide drift at a level of concern to nontarget invertebrates (butterflies) has been measured up to approximately 227 m (745 ft) from truck routes (Pierce 2011, pp. 3-5, 7; Rand and Hoang 2010, pp. 14, 23) and 400 m (1,312 ft) from aerial spray zones (Bargar 2012, p. 3). It should be noted that many of the studies referenced above dealt with single application scenarios and examined effects on only one or two butterfly life stages. Under a realistic scenario, the potential exists for exposure to all life stages to occur over multiple applications in a season. In the case of a persistent compound like permethrin, whose residues remain on vegetation for weeks, the potential exists for nontarget species to be exposed to multiple pesticides within a season (
Prior to 2015, aerial applications of mosquito control pesticides occurred on a limited basis (approximately two to four aerial applications per year since 2010) within some of Miami-Dade County's pine rockland areas. The Miami tiger beetle is not known to occupy any of these aerial spray zone sites, but any unknown occupied sites could have been exposed, either directly or through drift. The Richmond Pine Rocklands region is not directly treated either aerially or by truck (C. Vasquez, 2013, pers. comm.), so any potential pesticide exposure in this area would be through drift from spray zones adjacent to the Richmond area. Pesticide drift from aerial spray zones to the two known populations of Miami tiger beetles is unlikely, based on the considerable distance from spray zone boundaries to known occurrences of the beetle (estimated minimum distances range from 2.0-3.0 km (1.2-1.9 mi) from the Richmond population and 434 m (0.3 mi) for the second population). In the past, truck-based applications occurred within 227 m (745 ft) of known occupied Miami tiger beetle habitat, a distance under which pesticide drift at a concentration of concern for nontarget invertebrates had been measured (Pierce 2011, pp. 3-5, 7; Rand and Hoang 2010, pp. 14, 23). For the 2015 mosquito season (May through October), Miami-Dade Mosquito Control coordinated with the Service to institute 250-m truck-based and 400-m aerial spray buffers around critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, with the exclusion of pine rocklands in the Navy Wells area, which is not known to be occupied by the Miami tiger beetle. These newly implemented buffers will also reduce exposure to any other imperiled species occurring on pine rockland habitat within Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly critical habitat, such as the Miami tiger beetle. Assuming that the Miami tiger beetle is no more sensitive to pesticide exposure than the tested butterfly species, these spray buffers should avoid adverse impacts to the Miami tiger beetle population.
Based on Miami-Dade Mosquito Control's implementation of spray buffers, mosquito control pesticides are not considered a major threat for the Miami tiger beetle at this time. If these buffers were to change or Miami tiger beetles were found to occur on habitat that is not protected by Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly critical habitat, then the threat of pesticide exposure would have to be reevaluated.
Human disturbance, depending upon type and frequency, may or may not be a threat to tiger beetles or their habitats. Knisley (2011b, entire) reviewed both the negative and positive effects of human disturbances on tiger beetles. Vehicles, bicycles, and human foot traffic have been implicated in the decline and extirpation of tiger beetle populations, especially for species in more open habitats like beaches and sand dunes. The northeastern beach tiger beetle was extirpated throughout the northeast coincidental with the development of recreational use from pedestrian foot traffic and vehicles (Knisley
Vehicle activity on seldom-used roads may have some negative effect on the Miami tiger beetle (
The parcels that comprise the two known populations of the Miami tiger beetle are not open to the public for recreational use, so human disturbance is unlikely. For any unknown occurrences of the species, human disturbance from recreational use is a possibility, as some of the remaining pine rockland sites in Miami-Dade County are open to the public for recreational use. Miami-Dade County leads the State in gross urban density at 15.45 people per acre (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 1, 13), and development and human population growth are expected to continue in the future. By 2025, Miami-Dade County is predicted to exceed a population size of over 3 million people (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 20). With the expected future increase in human population and development, there will likely be an increase in the use of recreational areas, including sites with potentially suitable habitat and unknown occurrences of Miami tiger beetles. Projected future increases in recreational use, may increase levels of human disturbance and negatively impact any unknown occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle and their habitat.
In summary, vehicular activity and recreational use within the known population of the Miami tiger beetle presents minimal impacts to the species. However, future negative impacts to unknown beetle occurrences on lands open to the public are possible and are expected to increase with the projected future population growth.
Climatic changes, including sea level rise (SLR), are major threats to Florida, and could impact the Miami tiger beetle and the few remaining parcels of pine rockland habitat left in Miami-Dade County. Our analyses include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s. Based on extensive analyses of global average surface air temperature, the most widely used measure of change, the IPCC concluded that warming of the global climate system over the past several decades is “unequivocal” (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). In other words, the IPCC concluded that there is no question that the world's climate system is warming. Examples of other changes include substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other regions (for these and additional examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; Solomon
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is “very likely” (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in temperature and other climate conditions (
In addition to basing their projections on scientific analyses, the IPCC reports projections using a framework for treatment of uncertainties (
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables such as habitat fragmentation (for examples, see Franco
Many analyses involve elements that are common to climate change vulnerability assessments. In relation to climate change, vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” under the Act. If a species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding its vulnerability to, and known or anticipated impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the only or the best scientific information available for us to use. However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of the world (
According to the Florida Climate Center, Florida is by far the most vulnerable State in the United States to hurricanes and tropical storms (
Other processes to be affected by climate change, related to environmental stochasticity, include temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and storms (frequency and intensity). Temperatures are projected to rise from 2-5 degrees Celsius (°C) (3.6-9 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) for North America by the end of this century (IPCC 2007a, pp. 7-9, 13). Based upon predictive modeling, Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are expected to decrease (Knutson
The long-term record at Key West shows that sea level rose on average 0.229 cm (0.090 in) annually between 1913 and 2013 (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2013, p. 1). This equates to approximately 22.9 cm (9.02 in) over the last 100 years. IPCC (2008, p. 28) emphasized it is very likely that the average rate of SLR during the 21st century will exceed the historical rate. The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (2000, entire) presented a range of scenarios based on the computed amount of change in the climate system due to various potential amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols in 2100. Each scenario describes a future world with varying levels of atmospheric pollution, leading to corresponding levels of global warming and corresponding levels of SLR. The IPCC Synthesis Report (2007a, entire) provided an integrated view of climate change and presented updated projections of future climate change and related impacts under different scenarios.
Subsequent to the 2007 IPCC Report, the scientific community has continued to model SLR. Recent peer-reviewed publications indicate a movement toward increased acceleration of SLR. Observed SLR rates are already trending along the higher end of the 2007 IPCC estimates, and it is now widely held that SLR will exceed the levels projected by the IPCC (Rahmstorf
All of the scenarios, from small climate change shifts to major changes, indicate negative effects on pine rockland habitat throughout Miami-Dade County. Prior to inundation, pine rocklands are likely to undergo habitat transitions related to climate change, including changes to hydrology and increasing vulnerability to storm surge. Hydrology has a strong influence on plant distribution in these and other coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such communities typically grade from salt to brackish to freshwater species. From the 1930s to 1950s, increased salinity of coastal waters contributed to the decline of cabbage palm forests in southwest Florida (Williams
The Science and Technology Committee of the Miami-Dade County Climate Change Task Force (Wanless
Drier conditions and increased variability in precipitation associated with climate change are expected to hamper successful regeneration of forests and cause shifts in vegetation types through time (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 39). Although it has not been well studied, existing pine rocklands have probably been affected by reductions in the mean water table. Climate changes are also forecasted to extend fire seasons and the frequency of large fire events throughout the Coastal Plain (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 43). While restoring fire to pine rocklands is essential to the long-term viability of the Miami tiger beetle (see Factor A discussion, above), increases in the scale, frequency, or severity of wildfires could have negative effects on the species (
To accommodate the large uncertainty in SLR projections, researchers must estimate effects from a range of scenarios. Various model scenarios developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and GeoAdaptive Inc. have projected possible trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida landscape by 2060, based upon four main drivers: climate change, shifts in planning approaches and regulations, human population change, and variations in financial resources for conservation (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010, pp. 1-6). The scenarios do not account for temperature, precipitation, or species habitat shifts due to climate change, and no storm surge effects are considered. The current MIT scenarios range from an increase of 0.09-1.00 m (0.3-3.3 ft) by 2060.
Based on the most recent estimates of SLR and the data available to us at this time, we evaluated potential effects of SLR using the current “high” range MIT scenario, as well as comparing elevations of remaining pine rockland fragments and extant occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle. The “high” range (or “worst case”) MIT scenario assumes high SLR (1.0 m (3.3 ft) by 2060), low financial resources, a `business as usual' approach to planning, and a doubling of human population. Based on this scenario, pine rocklands along the coast in central Miami-Dade County would become inundated. The “new” sea level (1.0 m (3.3 ft) higher) would come up to the edge of pine rockland fragments at the southern end of Miami-Dade County, translating to partial inundation or, at a minimum, vegetation shifts for these pine rocklands. While sea level under this scenario would not overtake other pine rocklands in urban Miami-Dade County, including the known locations for the Miami tiger beetle, changes in the salinity of the water table and soils would surely cause vegetation shifts that may negatively impact the viability of the beetle. In addition, many existing pine rockland fragments are projected to be developed for housing as the human population grows and adjusts to changing sea levels under this “high” range (or “worst case”) MIT scenario. Actual impacts may be greater or less than anticipated based upon high variability of factors involved (
When simply looking at current elevations of pine rockland fragments and occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle, it appears that an SLR of 1 m (3.3 ft) will inundate the coastal and southern pine rocklands and cause vegetation shifts largely as described above. SLR of 2 m (6.6 ft) appears to inundate much larger portions of urban Miami-Dade County. The western part of urban Miami-Dade County would also be inundated (barring creation of sea walls or other barriers), creating a virtual island of the Miami Rock Ridge. After a 2-m rise in sea level, approximately 75 percent of the remaining pine rockland would still be above sea level but an unknown percentage of these fragments would be negatively impacted by salinization of the water table and soils, which would be exacerbated due to isolation from mainland fresh water flows. Above 2 m (6.6 ft) of SLR, very little pine rockland would remain, with the vast majority either being inundated or experiencing vegetation shifts.
The climate of southern Florida is driven by a combination of local, regional, and global events, regimes, and oscillations. There are three main “seasons”: (1) The wet season, which is hot, rainy, and humid from June through October; (2) the official hurricane season that extends 1 month beyond the wet season (June 1 through November 30), with peak season being August and September; and (3) the dry season, which is drier and cooler, from November through May. In the dry season, periodic surges of cool and dry continental air masses influence the weather with short-duration rain events followed by long periods of dry weather.
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms (Golladay
The Miami tiger beetle is anticipated to face major risks from coastal squeeze, which occurs when habitat is pressed between rising sea levels and coastal development that prevents landward movement (Scavia
Based on our analysis of the best available information, we have identified a wide array of natural and manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the Miami tiger beetle. The beetle is immediately vulnerable to extinction, due to the effects of few remaining small populations, restricted range, and isolation. Aspects of the Miami tiger beetle's natural history (
The limited distribution, small population size, few populations, and relative isolation of the Miami tiger beetle makes it extremely susceptible to further habitat loss, modification, degradation, and other anthropogenic threats. The Miami tiger beetle's viability at present is uncertain, and its continued persistence is in danger, unless protective actions are taken. Mechanisms causing the decline of this beetle, as discussed above, range from local (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Miami tiger beetle. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation have destroyed an estimated 98 percent of the historical pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County, with only two known populations remaining. The threat of habitat loss is continuing from development, inadequate habitat management resulting in vegetation encroachment, and environmental effects resulting from climatic change (see discussions under Factors A and E). Due to the restricted range, small population size, few populations, and relative isolation (see Factor E), collection is a significant threat to the species and could potentially occur at any time (see discussions under Factor B). Additionally, the species is currently threatened by a wide array of natural and manmade factors (see Factor E). Existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate protection for the species (see Factor D). As a result, impacts from increasing threats, singly or in combination, are likely to result in the extinction of the species because the magnitude of threats is high.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We find that the Miami tiger beetle is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting the species. The overall range has been significantly impacted because of significant habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of pine rockland habitat. Newly proposed development is currently threating the only known population of this species. The fragmented nature of Miami-Dade County's remaining pine rockland habitat and the influx of development around them may preclude the ability to conduct prescribed burns or other beneficial management actions that are needed to prevent vegetation encroachment. The remaining two known, small populations of the Miami tiger beetle appears to occupy relatively small habitat patches, which make the population vulnerable to local extinction from normal fluctuations in population size, genetic problems from small population size, or environmental catastrophes. Limited dispersal abilities in combination with limited habitat may result in local extirpations.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the Miami tiger beetle as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the Miami tiger beetle because of significant habitat loss (
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of the species occur throughout the species' range and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed determination apply to the species throughout its entire range.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Although the Miami tiger beetle is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both, as described in the preceding paragraph, include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal agencies; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. 50 CFR 17.31 generally applies the prohibitions for endangered wildlife to threatened wildlife, unless a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act is adopted by the Service.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Unauthorized possession, collecting, trapping, capturing, killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, including interstate and foreign
(2) Incidental take without a permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
(3) Sale or purchase of specimens, except for properly documented antique specimens of this taxon at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(4) Unauthorized use of pesticides/herbicides that results in take.
(5) Release of biological control agents that attack any life stage.
(6) Discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals, silts, or other pollutants into, or other alteration of the quality of, habitat supporting the Miami tiger beetles that result in take.
(7) Unauthorized activities (
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) Essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” Section 3(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.”
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is currently an imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism described under Factor B, above, for the species. However, it is believed that the majority of occurrences of Miami tiger beetles are well known. Although the location of the new population is less well known, awareness of this population is increasing in the natural resource community. We believe that the benefits of designating critical habitat will outweigh the risks associated with increased collection from mapping and identifying critical habitat.
Therefore, in the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, a finding that designation is prudent is warranted. Here, the potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to these species.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we determine that designation of critical habitat may be prudent for the Miami tiger beetle.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat. On the basis of a review of available information, we find that critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle is not determinable because the specific information sufficient to perform the required analysis of the impacts of the designation is currently lacking. Specifically, we are still in the process of obtaining all the information needed to properly evaluate the economic impacts of designation.
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:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) 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
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the South Florida Ecological Services Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the CFR, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB implementing regulations. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Written comments on this notice must be received by February 22, 2016.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Michael S. Strauss, Peer Review Program Coordinator, Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR); Agricultural Research Agency, USDA; 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705; Phone: 301-504-3283; Fax: 301-504-1251.
Michael S. Strauss, 301-504-3283.
The OSQR will seek approval from OMB to update six existing forms and one new form that will allow the ARS to efficiently manage data associated with the peer review of agricultural research. All forms are transferred and received in an electronic storage format that does not include online access.
Abstract: The OSQR was established in September of 1999 as a result of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 1998 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 105-185). The Act included mandates to perform scientific peer reviews of all research activities conducted by the USDA. The Office manages the ARS peer review system by centrally planning peer panel reviews for ARS research projects on a 5-year cycle.
Each set of reviews is assigned a chairperson to govern the review process. Peer reviewers are, with few exceptions, non-ARS scientists. Peer review panels are convened to provide in-depth discussion and review of the research project plans. Each panel reviewer receives information on between 1 and 5 ARS research projects.
On average, 165 research projects are reviewed annually by an estimated 200 reviewers; whereby approximately 155 are reviewed by panel and approximately 15 are reviewed through an ad hoc (written review) process. The organization and management of this peer review system, particularly panel reviews, is highly dependent on the use of forms.
The OSQR will seek OMB approval of the following forms:
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form—USDA uses this form to document that a selected reviewer is responsible for keeping confidential any information learned during the subject peer review process. The Confidentiality Agreement is signed prior to the reviewer's involvement in the peer review process. This form requires an original signature. Electronically transmitted scans of signed forms are also accepted.
2. Panelist Information Form—USDA uses this form to gather up-to-date background information about the reviewer as well as information relevant to the paying of an honorarium and for travel, where appropriate. Reviewers often include sensitive information on this form and, thus it is not retained or recorded in electronic form by the OSQR.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form)—USDA uses this form to guide the reviewer's in-depth written comments on the subject project. The form contains the reviewing criteria and space for the reviewer's narrative comments and evaluation.
3. Reviewer Comment Form (New). This form is supplied to members of a panel not receiving the above Peer Review Form to provide a vehicle whereby they may record comments or recommendations for any plan before their panel but for which they do not have in-depth review responsibility.
4. Ad Hoc Review Form. USDA uses this in select cases (for Ad Hoc Reviewers who are not members of a review panel), a check-off listing of action classes at the end of the form allows them to provide an overall rating of the plan.
5. Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form—(Recommendations Form)—USDA uses this form to guide the panel's evaluation and critique of the review process. The form contains the recommendations of the panel for the subject research project.
6. Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report)—USDA uses this form to document a panel reviewer's expense incurred traveling to and attending a peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging, meals, and transportation expenses. When completed, the form contains sensitive information, but is used only in the rare circumstance that a panel meeting requires travel of the participants.
7. Panel Invoice Form (Honorarium Form)—USDA uses this form to document the transfer of an honorarium to a peer reviewer. Reviewers receive honoraria as compensation for serving as peer review panelists. This form requires an original signature. It is used only in special circumstances where reviewers cannot accept a direct bank transfer of the honorarium. In such cases this is used in lieu of the SF-1034 to provide OSQR a written record of the honorarium payment.
(1) USDA's collection of information on the Confidentiality Agreement Form is needed to document that a selected reviewer is responsible for keeping confidential any information learned during the subject peer review process. The Confidentiality Agreement would be signed prior to the reviewer's involvement in the peer review process.
(2) USDA's collection of information on the Panelist Information Form is needed to gather up-to-date background information about the reviewer. It contains sensitive information.
(3) USDA's collection of information on the Peer Review Form and Reviewer Comment Form is needed to guide the reviewer's comments on the subject project. Both contain review guidance and space to insert comments.
(4) USDA's collection of information on the Ad Hoc Review Form is needed
(5) USDA's collection of information on the Recommendations Form is needed to guide the panel's critique of the review process. It contains the recommendations of the panel for the subject research project.
(6) USDA's collection of information on the Expense Report Form is needed to document a panel reviewer's expenses incurred by attending a peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging, meals, and transportation expenses. It includes sensitive information.
(7) USDA's collection of information on the Honorarium Form is needed to document the transfer of an honorarium to the peer reviewer in those rare cases where an SF-1034 is not completed. The honorarium is given to reviewers as appreciation for their time spent on the panel review process.
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form: This form takes up to10 minutes to complete. It only requires a signature and date, but the reviewer must read and consider the terms of the agreement.
2. Panelist Information Form: This form takes about 30 minutes to complete. It resembles a typical request for personal information; many reviewers provide the same data as grant reviewers in other peer review programs.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form). This form may take 4-7 hours to complete. Because this is a review, the page length varies. Reviewers are free to write as much as they wish, but to complete the form they must thoroughly read and evaluate a research project plan that may exceed 60-70 pages in length.
4. Reviewer Comment Form (New). This form takes 1 hours to complete. It typically contains a general assessment of the plan with only brief comments and is usually one page or less when completed.
5. Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form (Recommendations Form).
This form takes 1-2 hours to complete. Because this is a review, the page length significantly varies. For most plans it is completed by the OSQR from the Peer Review Forms and Reviewer Comment Forms and reviewed and revised by reviewers as part of their panel discussions. For the rare occasion where a panel meets in-person, the form is prepared by the designated primary reviewer for that plan who combines comments from all reviewers as found on the Peer Review Form and Reviewer Comment Form, and further analyses derived from the panel's discussions.
5. Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report): This form takes 30 minutes to complete.
6. Panel Invoice Form (Honorarium Form): This form takes 3 minutes to complete. This form has the reviewer's personal information pre-filled and the reviewer only verifies its accuracy and signs.
All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of blackberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 14/756,637, “Blackberry Plant Named `Columbia Giant',” filed on September 28, 2015.
Comments must be received on or before January 21, 2016.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. 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 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
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),
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.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of
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.
On July 29, 2015, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Northern Mississippi FTZ, Inc., grantee of FTZ 262, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 262, on behalf of Haier America Trading, LLC, in Olive Branch, Mississippi.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 262B is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 262's 680-acre activation limit.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.
Yasmin Bordas or John Corrigan, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-7438, respectively.
The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
The Department notes that, in making this preliminary determination, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available with respect to those respondents.
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of cold-rolled steel from the PRC based on a request made by Petitioners.
On October 30, 2015, Petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products from the PRC.
In accordance with sections 776(a)(1), 776(a)(2), and 776(b) of the Act, we applied facts otherwise available with an adverse inference, to assign countervailable subsidy rates for non-cooperative mandatory respondents Angang Hong Kong, Benxi Iron and Steel, and non-cooperative exporter Qian'an Golden Point. With respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rates assigned to Angang Hong Kong, Benxi Iron and Steel, and Qian'an Golden Point are based entirely on facts otherwise available, with an adverse inference, under section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record with which to determine an all-others rate. As a result, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have established the all-others rate by applying the countervailable subsidy rates for mandatory respondents Angang Hong Kong and Benxi Iron and Steel, which are the same as the rate applied to non-selected exporter Qian'an Golden Point. The preliminary estimated countervailable subsidy rates are summarized in the table below.
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation,” that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) Where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Ball bearing steels;
• Tool steels;
• Silico-manganese steel;
• Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in
• Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in
The products subject to these investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000,and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874.
On June 23, 2015, we received a timely request from Zhejiang Changxing CTL Auto Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd., (Changxing) that the Department conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
On September 21, 2015, we requested additional information from Changxing regarding entries to the United States that may have occurred prior to the period of review (POR) and relevant documentation for those entries.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), the Department may rescind a new shipper review if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 60 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, as noted above, Changxing submitted its withdrawal request on October 16, 2015, which is after the 60-day withdrawal deadline. Therefore, because the withdrawal request was untimely, we are not rescinding this review on this basis.
Nonetheless, information on the record indicates that Changxing may have had entries of subject merchandise prior to its declared entry in this new shipper review. Changxing failed to respond to the Department's September 21, 2015, request for additional information regarding these entries, and indeed affirmatively withdrew from this proceeding. Because we find that Changxing has withheld information requested of it within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we are making a determination on the basis of the facts otherwise available. In selecting from among the facts available, we find that an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is appropriate due to Changxing's failure to act to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's request. As adverse facts available, we determine that Changxing had additional entries of subject merchandise that were not reported to the Department at the time of Changxing's request for a new shipper review.
Based on the foregoing, we preliminarily find that Changxing does not meet the minimum requirements for a new shipper review under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C) in that Changxing's request did not contain documentation establishing the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Because we find that Changxing's request for a new shipper review did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for initiation of a new shipper review, we are preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review of the AD order on TRBs from the PRC with respect to Changxing.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary rescission and submit written arguments or case briefs within 30 days after the publication of this notice in the
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days after the day of publication of this notice.
We intend to issue the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in any case briefs, within 90 days after the date on which this preliminary rescission is issued, unless the deadline for our final results is extended.
As the Department intends to rescind this new shipper review, we are not making a determination as to whether Changxing qualifies for a separate rate. Therefore, if the Department proceeds to a final rescission, Changxing will remain part of the PRC entity and, accordingly, its entries covered by this new shipper review will be assessed at the PRC-wide rate.
Effective upon publication of the final rescission of the new shipper review of Changxing, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Changxing.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from India. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.
Erin Kearney or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0167 and (202) 482-4852, respectively.
The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of cold-rolled steel from India based on a request made by Petitioners.
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that countervailable subsides are being provided with respect to the manufacture, production, or exportation of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondent prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Russian Federation (Russia). The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.
Kristen Johnson (the NLMK Companies) and Stephanie Moore (the Severstal Companies), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793 and (202) 482-3692, respectively.
The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from Russia. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
On November 4, 2015, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, a petitioner in the investigation,
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of cold-rolled steel from Russia based on a request made by Petitioners.
On October 30, 2015, Petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of cold-rolled steel from Russia.
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually-investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that countervailable subsidies are being provided with respect to the manufacture, production, or exportation of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Russia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not investigated, we apply an “all others” rate, which is normally
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of these investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of these investigation:
The products subject to these investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that
Yasmin Bordas or Emily Maloof, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-5649, respectively.
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled steel flat products from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
In making this preliminary determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts otherwise available.
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that
Because we preliminarily determine that the CVD rates in this investigation are
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 75 days after the Department makes its final determination.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) Where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in
The products subject to these investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050.
The products subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from Brazil. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.
Nicholas Czajkowski or Lana Nigro, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1395 or (202) 482-1779, respectively.
The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
In making this preliminary determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts otherwise available.
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of cold-rolled steel from Brazil based on a request made by Petitioners.
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually investigated respondent company. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an “all others” rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Consistent with the Department's practice, we normally calculate the all others rate based on the weighted average of the mandatory respondents' calculated subsidy rates.
We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Brazil that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet in an open session on Wednesday, February 3, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Eastern Time and Thursday, February 4, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The VCAT is composed of fifteen members appointed by the NIST Director who are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations.
The VCAT will meet on Wednesday, February 3, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Eastern Time and Thursday, February 4, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held in the Portrait Room, Administration Building, at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Stephanie Shaw, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1060, telephone number 301-975-2667. Ms. Shaw's email address is
15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
The purpose of this meeting is for the VCAT to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include updates from the Administration on current research priorities and NIST's role in addressing these areas. NIST workforce engagement and actions to improve the recruitment and retention of high quality staff will also be discussed. The Committee also will present its initial observations, findings, and recommendations for the 2015 VCAT Annual Report. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda.
On Thursday, February 4, approximately one-half hour in the morning will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the NIST Web site at
All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Stephanie Shaw by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday, January 27, 2016. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Ms. Shaw. Ms. Shaw's email address is
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Extension of Nomination Deadline for the Digital Economy Board of Advisors.
NTIA announces that the closing deadline for the submission of nominations for the Digital Economy Board of Advisors is extended to midnight Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 12, 2016.
Nominations should be submitted electronically using the online nomination form on or before midnight EST on January 12, 2016.
All nominations should be submitted using the online nomination form located at
Evelyn Remaley, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-3821 or
On November 27, 2015, NTIA published a notice in the
NTIA extends the nomination deadline to midnight EST on January 12, 2016. NTIA announces this deadline extension in the interest of ensuring that applicants have sufficient time to submit nominations, recognizing the proximity of several Federal holidays to the current nomination deadline. All other requirements for the submission of nominations remain unchanged.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-71 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Six hundred (600) TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71E-4B-RF)
Seven (7) TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missile (BGM-71E-4B-RF) Fly-to-Buy Lot Acceptance Missiles
Three hundred (300) M220A2 TOW Launchers
Also included with this request are Missile Support Equipment; Government-Furnished Equipment; Technical Manuals/Publications; Spare Parts; Tool and Test Equipment; Training; U.S. Government Technical Support/Logistical Support; Contractor Technical Support; and other associated equipment and services.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act
The Kingdom of Morocco has requested a possible sale of:
Six hundred (600) TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71E-4B-RF)
Seven (7) TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missile (BGM-71E-4B-RF) Fly-to-Buy Lot Acceptance Missiles
Three hundred (300) M220A2 TOW Launchers
Also included with this request are Missile Support Equipment; Government-Furnished Equipment; Technical Manuals/Publications; Spare Parts; Tool and Test Equipment; Training; U.S. Government Technical Support/Logistical Support; Contractor Technical Support; and other associated equipment and services. The estimated value of MDE is $96 million. The total estimated value is $157 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for the political stability and economic progress in North Africa.
The proposed sale of the TOW 2A Missiles, M220A2 Launchers and technical support will advance Morocco's efforts to modernize its ground defense capability.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor involved in this program is Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Morocco for multiple periods for equipment deprocessing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training. There will be no more than six contractor personnel in Morocco at any one time and all efforts will take less than 14 weeks in total.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2A Missile (BGM-71E-4B-RF) is a direct attack missile designed to defeat armored vehicles, reinforced urban structures, field fortifications and other such targets. TOW missiles are fired from a variety of TOW launchers in the U.S. Army, USMC, and FMS customer forces. The TOW 2A RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as the existing wire-guided TOW 2A missile without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2A missile (both wire & RF) contains two tracker beacons (xenon and thermal) for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by a RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications provided with the sale thereof are unclassified. However, the system itself contains sensitive technology that instructs the system on how to operate in the presence of countermeasures.
2. If a technology advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Talent Search Program
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.044A.
Applications Available: December 22, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 5, 2016.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: April 20, 2016.
Applicants must include, in the one-page abstract submitted with the application, a statement indicating which, if any, of the competitive preference priorities are addressed. If the applicant addresses any of the competitive preference priorities, this information must also be listed on the Talent Search Program Profile Form.
Through Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) and 2(b), an applicant can earn one additional point for each priority by demonstrating that its strategy is based on research that meets the Evidence of Promise standard or two additional points for each priority by demonstrating that its strategy is based on research that meets the Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness standard. Applicants seeking to address Competitive Preference Priority 1(b) or 2(b) should identify up to two citations for studies that meet the definition of the applicable evidence standard for each priority (a maximum of four citations if addressing both priorities). The Department will review the studies cited by the applicants to determine if they meet the requirements for Evidence of Promise or Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness.
Cited studies may include those already listed in the Department's What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Reviewed Studies Database (see
Points will only be awarded if the submitted studies are determined to meet the particular evidence standard, and if a determination is made that the research cited is relevant to the proposed projects. Applicants addressing Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) or 2(b) should clearly demonstrate the relevance of the cited studies to proposed project activities. Applicants should also clearly demonstrate how the proposed project activities align with the cited study with sufficient fidelity. Where modifications to the cited intervention will be made to account for student or institutional/organizational characteristics, resource limitations, or other special factors, the applicant should provide a justification or basis for the modifications in the narrative response to the priority.
The link(s) for the citation(s) submitted for Competitive Preference Priority 1(b) or 2(b) should be provided on the abstract, as well as on the Talent Search Program Profile Form. Applicants should specify in their narrative responses to these priorities the findings within the studies cited as evidence in support of their strategies and ensure that the citation(s) and link(s) are from an available source.
The competitive preference priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 1(b)—
Competitive Preference Priority 2(b)—Programs supported by Evidence of Promise (1 additional point) or on Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness (2 additional points).
The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1.
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample. Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
• For an applicant that is not currently receiving a Talent Search Program grant, the maximum award amount is $230,000 for a project that will serve a minimum of 500 participants, based upon a per-participant cost of no more than $460.
• For an applicant that is currently receiving a Talent Search Program grant, the maximum award amount is the greater of (a) $230,000 or (b) 100 percent of the applicant's base award amount for FY 2015. The minimum number of participants an applicant proposes to serve must be 500
We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum amount listed above for a single budget period of 12 months. We will also reject any application that proposes a budget to serve fewer than 500 participants, and will reject any application that proposes a budget that
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the project narrative (Part III), which includes the budget narrative, to the equivalent of no more than 65 pages using the following standards. However, any application addressing the competitive preference priorities may include up to two additional pages for each part of each priority (1(a) and (b); 2(a) and (b)), if addressed. Those up to eight additional pages must be used to discuss how the application meets the competitive preference priority (or priorities). The additional pages allotted to address priorities cannot be used for or transferred to the project narrative or any section of the application.
For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limit, each page on which there is text or graphics will be counted as one full page.
A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the project narrative.
Single space is appropriate for titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in figures, charts, and graphs.
You should also include a table of contents in the project narrative, which will not be counted toward the page limit.
Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I—the Application for Federal Assistance Face Sheet (SF 424); Part II—the budget information summary form (ED Form 524); Part III, the Talent Search Program Profile Form, the one-page Project Abstract form; and Part IV—the Assurances and Certifications. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of Part III—the Project Narrative, for the purpose of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in Part III—the Project Narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: December 22, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 5, 2016.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: April 20, 2016.
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Talent Search Program, CFDA number 84.044A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Talent Search Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: James Davis, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7007, Washington, DC 20006-8510. FAX: (202) 502-7545.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.044A) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.044A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4,1 08.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria, pursuant to 34 CFR 643.21. The individual scores assigned by the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer reviewer score received in the review process. Additionally, in accordance with 34 CFR 643.22, the Secretary will award prior experience points to applicants that have conducted a Talent Search project during budget periods 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, based on their documented experience. Prior experience points, if any, will be added to the application's averaged reader score to determine the total score for each application.
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
5.
Craig Pooler, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Suite 7010, Washington, DC 20006-8510. Telephone: (202) 502-7600 or email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
Ontario Power Generation, Inc. (Applicant or OPG) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before January 21, 2016.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On April 18, 2011, DOE issued Order No. EA-290-B to OPG, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on June 21, 2016. On December 7, 2015, OPG filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-290 for an additional five-year term.
In its application, OPG states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that OPG proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by OPG have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.
Comments and other filings concerning OPG's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-290-C. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Andrew Barrett, Ontario Power Generation, Inc., 700 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6 Canada and Jerry L. Pfeffer, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 1440 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during October 2015, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), to export compressed natural gas (CNG), and to vacate authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
Ohkay Conference Center, Highway 68, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico 87566.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Northern New Mexico, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.
Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.
Tentative Agenda:
Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-725K (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the SERC Region) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by January 21, 2016.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0260, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC16-1-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed by a Regional Entity to be effective in that region. In Order No. 672, the Commission noted that:
As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest, as required under the statute: (1) A regional difference that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System.
When NERC reviews a regional Reliability Standard that would be applicable on an interconnection-wide basis and that has been proposed by a Regional Entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis, NERC must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. In turn, the Commission must give “due weight” to the technical expertise of NERC and of a Regional Entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis.
On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities. In the order, the Commission accepted SERC as a Regional Entity organized on less than an interconnection-wide basis. As a Regional Entity, SERC oversees Bulk-Power System reliability within the SERC Region, which covers a geographic area of approximately 560,000 square miles in a sixteen-state area in the southeastern and central United States (all of Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and portions of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Florida). The SERC Region is currently geographically divided into five subregions that are identified as Southeastern, Central, VACAR, Delta, and Gateway.
Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 10:00 a.m. (EST) on December 21, 2015, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced docket.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For additional information, please contact Ken Ende,
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental assessment (EA) for UGI Sunbury LLC's Sunbury Pipeline Project. The previous notice of schedule, issued on November 9, 2015, identified January 7, 2016 as the EA issuance date.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. Go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 3, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for the construction and operation of new Line QP and permission to abandon the Queen Storage Field, including the base gas in the field, the Queen Compressor
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to David W. Reitz, Deputy General Counsel for National Fuel, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221; by calling (716) 857-7949; by faxing (716) 857-7206; or by emailing
Specifically, National Fuel proposes to abandon by sale all of the facilities comprising its Queen Storage Field, including an approximately 5.5 mile segment of its Line Q. These facilities are proposed to be sold to EmKey Gathering LLC which plans to operate them as part of its non-jurisdictional gathering facilities. In order to maintain service to existing utility customers, National Fuel seeks authorization to construct and operate approximately 5 miles of new 4-inch diameter plastic pipe traversing along or adjacent to the existing Line Q right-of-way.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental assessment (EA) for the Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC's Jacksonville Expansion Project. The first notice of schedule, issued on November 12, 2015, identified December 18, 2015 as the EA issuance date. However, staff has revised the schedule for issuance of the EA.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription
On November 26, 2015, Energy Resources USA Inc., filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Tom Bevill Lock and Dam on the Tombigbee River near the town of Aliceville in Pickens County, Alabama. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 770-foot-long, 300-foot-wide intake channel with a 85-foot-long retaining wall; (2) a 131-foot-long, 82-foot-wide powerhouse containing four generating units with a total capacity of 15.5 megawatts; (3) a 1000-foot-long, 220-foot-wide tailrace with a 40-foot-long retaining wall; (4) a 4.16/69 kilo-Volt (kV) substation; and (5) a 3-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 84,440 megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by the Corps.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 21, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and pursuant to the requirements of 42 CFR 83.15(a), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2017.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity (FOA) CK16-004, Epicenters for the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Adverse Events.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
CDC Work@Health® Program: Phase 2 Training and Technical Assistance Evaluation (OMB No. 0920-1006, exp. date 1/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is continuing to make available the Work@Health® Program, a comprehensive worksite health promotion training program, to support employers' efforts to create healthy work environments and provide employees with opportunities to make healthy lifestyle choices. The Work@Health® Program will train and support small, mid-size, and large employers with three primary goals: (1) Increase understanding of the training needs of employers and the best way to deliver skill-based training to them; (2) Increase employers' level of knowledge and awareness of worksite health program concepts and principles; and 3) Increase the number of science-based worksite health programs, policies, and practices in place in participating employers' worksites resulting in opportunities for employees to participate in them.
CDC is requesting OMB approval to continue Phase 2 information collection with new cohorts of respondents in 2016-2019. Phase 2 procedures were informed by a needs assessment and pilot test that were conducted in fall 2013 (“CDC Work@Health® Program: Phase 1,” OMB No. 0920-0989, exp. 9/30/2014) as well as first year results. CDC will offer training in four models (formats): (1) A “Hands-on” instructor-led workshop model (T1), (2) a self-paced ”Online” model (T2), (3) a combination or “Blended” model (T3), and (4) a “Train-the-Trainer” model (T4) designed to prepare qualified individuals to train employers through the Hands-on, Online, or Blended models.
To evaluate the training, information will be collected from approximately 480 employers and approximately 120 individuals who are interested in becoming trained/certified instructors for the Work@Health® Program. In addition, information will be collected from approximately 600 participant who receive training delieverd by the trained/certified instructors. Respondents will include employers/employees, trainees who participate in
CDC will use the information collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the Work@Health® Program in terms of (1) increasing employer's knowledge and awareness of worksite health concepts, principles, and resources, and (2) increasing the number of science-based worksite health programs, policies and practices in place at participating employers' worksites. The information will also be used to continue to identify and improve the best way(s) to deliver skill-based training and technical support to employers in the area of worksite health.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in Work@Health® is voluntary and there are no costs to participants other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,047.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DP 16-001, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS).
Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., EST, Panel C, February 3, 2016 (Closed)
Place: Teleconference
Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “FOA DP16-001, Panel C, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS)”.
Contact Person for More Information: Jayalakshmi Raman Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6511,
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Times and Dates: 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST, January 28, 2016; 9:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m. EST, January 29, 2016.
Place: CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Chamblee Building 106 1A/1B, Atlanta, Georgia 30341.
This meeting is also accessible by teleconference and web access. Teleconference and web access login information are as follows:
Toll-Free Telephone: 1-888-972-9241, Participant passcode: 8025509.
Net Conference and Web Url:
For January 28, 2016:
Conference number: PW6371280, Audience passcode: 8025509.
Participants can join the event directly at:
For January 29, 2016:
Conference number: PW6371295, Audience passcode: 8025509.
Participants can join the event directly at:
Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space and audio phone lines available.
Purpose: The committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS; the Assistant Secretary for Health; and the Director, CDC, regarding the formative research, development, implementation and evaluation of evidence-based activities designed to prevent breast cancer (particularly among those at heightened risk) and promote the early detection and support of young women who develop the disease. The advice provided by the Committee will assist in ensuring scientific quality, timeliness, utility, and dissemination of credible appropriate messages and resource materials.
Matters for Discussion: The agenda will include discussions on the current and emerging topics related to breast cancer in young women. These will include public health communication, breast cancer in young women digital and social media campaigns, and CDC updates. Topics will address efforts to increase awareness around breast cancer risk, breast health, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer in young women.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Online Registration Required: In order to expedite the security clearance process required for entry into a Federal building, all ACBCYW attendees must register for the meeting online at least 7 business days in advance at
Contact Person For More Information: Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 5770 Buford Hwy. NE., Mailstop K52, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4518, Fax (770) 488-4760. Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
This notice was published in the
Teleconference Dial-In Number: 1-888-469-1243, Participant Code: 4709506
TTY Accessible link:
CDC encourages participation by persons with disabilities. Captions and participation by persons with communications challenges will be available online via Relay Conference Captioning. To view the online captions at the start time of the event, please login for captioning at:
Contact Person For More Information: Arlene Greenspan, DrPH, M.P.H., P.T. Associate Director for Science, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4696.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than February 19, 2016.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
Total Estimated Annualized burden hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Technology description follows.
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/226,289 filed December 11, 2015.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This is a notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404, that the National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services is contemplating the grant of an exclusive start-up option license to practice the inventions embodied in the following Patent Applications and all related continuing and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family to EncepHeal Therapeutics, Inc., located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NCI Technology Transfer Center on or before January 6, 2016 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to Martha Lubet, Ph.D., Technology Transfer Specialist, NCI TTC, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room IE350, and Rockville, MD 20850. Telephone: (240) 276-5508. Facsimile: (240) 276-5505. Email:
This invention concerns analogues of modafinil and methods of using the analogues for the treatment of substance use disorders and sleep disorders.
The prospective exclusive start-up option 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 start-up option 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.
Complete 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 start-up option 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.
U.S. provisional application 61/774,878, filed March 8, 2013 entitled “Potent and Selective Inhibitors of Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof” [HHS Ref. No. E-073-2013/0-US-01];
PCT application PCT/US2014/021514, filed March 7, 2014 entitled “Potent and Selective Analogues of: Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof” [HHS Ref. No. E-073-2013/0-PCT-02];
U.S. application 14/772,486, filed September 3, 2015 entitled “Potent and Selective Analogues of Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof” [HHS Ref. No. E-073-2013/0-US-06];
EPO application 14714043.8, filed September 1, 2015 entitled “Potent and Selective Analogues of Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof” [HHS Ref. No. E-073-2013/0-EP-05];
Australian application 2014225550, filed September 8, 2015 entitled “Potent and Selective Analogues of Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof” [HHS Ref. No. E-073-2013/0-AU-03];
Canadian application 2903746, filed September 2, 2015 entitled “Potent and Selective Analogues of Monamine Transporters; Methods of Making; and Uses Thereof” [HHS Ref. No. E-073-2013/0-CA-04];
The patent rights to these inventions have been assigned to and/or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive start-up option licensed territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to: (a) Treatment of substance use disorders and/or (b) treatment of sleep disorders.
Upon the expiration or termination of the exclusive start-up option license, EncepHeal Therapeutics, Inc. will have the exclusive right to execute a start-up exclusive commercialization license which will supersede and replace the exclusive start-up option license with no greater field of use and territory than granted in the exclusive start-up option license.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. A portion of this 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 for the review and discussion of grant applications. 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.
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.
In order to facilitate public attendance at the open session of Council in the main meeting room, Conference Room 6, please contact Ms. Lisa Kaeser, Program and Public Liaison Office, NICHD, at 301-496-0536 to make your reservation, additional seating will be available in the meeting overflow rooms, Conference Rooms 7 and 8. Individuals will also be able to view the meeting via NIH Videocast. Please go to the following link for Videocast access instructions at:
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Mary Anne Bright, NCI Office of Communications and Public Liaison, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-6647 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 3,387.
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.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the revision of data collection activities for the cross-site evaluation of the Minority Substance Abuse/HIV Prevention Program (MAI), which includes both youth and adult questionnaires. This revision includes the inclusion of 4 cohorts, substantial revisions to the youth and adult questionnaires, updates to the data used to estimate response rates and expected numbers of participants by service duration (see Table 1 below), and addition of two brief forms to collect dosage information.
This cross-site evaluation supports two of SAMHSA's 6 Strategic Initiatives: Prevention of Substance Abuse and Mental Illness and Health Care and Health Systems Integration. It builds on evaluations of data collected by ten previous cohorts of grantees funded by SAMHSA's CSAP to provide substance abuse and HIV prevention services for minority populations. The first two cohorts were planning grant programs and the rest were service grant programs. The goals for the Cohort 3-10 grants were to add, increase, or enhance integrated substance abuse (SA) and HIV prevention services by providing supportive services and strengthening linkages between service providers and at-risk minority populations. Cohorts 1-3 previously received clearance under OMB No. 0930-0208 and Cohort 6-10 grants previously received clearance under OMB No. 0930-0298. The grant period for Cohort 9 and 10 grants will end on 9/30/2015.
The cohorts of grantees funded by the MAI and included in this clearance request are:
• Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations (CBO): 29 three-year grants funded at the end of FY 2013 (MSI CBO 2013)
• Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations (CBO): 21 three-year grants funded at the end of FY 2014 (MSI CBO 2014)
• Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations (CBO): 34 three-year grants were funded in FY 2015 (MSI CBO 2015)
• Capacity Building Initiative (CBI): 54 five-year grants were funded in 2015 (CBI 2015)
MSI CBO grantees are Historically Black Colleges/Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions, or Tribal Colleges/Universities in partnership with community based organizations in their surrounding communities. MSI CBO grantees are required to provide integrated substance abuse (SA),
• Assess the success of the MAI in reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors associated with the transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and other sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs).
• Measure the effectiveness of evidence-based programs and infrastructure development activities such as: Outreach and training, mobilization of key stakeholders, substance abuse and HIV/AIDS counseling and education, testing, referrals to appropriate medical treatment and/or other intervention strategies (
• Investigate intervention types and features that yield the best outcomes for specific population groups.
• Assess the extent to which access to health care was enhanced for population groups and individuals vulnerable to behavioral health disparities residing in communities targeted by funded interventions.
• Assess the process of adopting and implementing the SPF with the target populations.
Continuing the cross-site evaluation will assist SAMHSA/CSAP in promoting and disseminating optimally effective prevention programs, counseling, health education, and referrals to appropriate medical treatment and/or other intervention strategies. The MAI grantees are expected to provide an effective prevention process, direction, and a common set of goals, expectations, and accountabilities to be adapted and integrated at the community level. Grantees have substantial flexibility in choosing their individual evidence-based programs, but must base this selection on and build it into the five steps of the SPF. These SPF steps consist of assessing local needs, building service capacity specific to SA and HIV prevention services, developing a strategic prevention plan, implementing evidence-based interventions, and evaluating their outcomes. Grantees are also required to provide HIV and HCV testing and counseling services and referrals to appropriate treatment options. Grantees must also conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation of their projects to assess program effectiveness including Federal reporting of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, SAMHSA/CSAP National Outcome Measures (NOMs), and the Department of Health and Human Services Core HIV Indicators.
As part of the cross-site evaluation, survey data will be collected through self-report questionnaires administered to program participants. All grantees will use two questionnaires, one for youth aged between 12 and 17 and one for adults aged 18 and older. Participants in services lasting 30 days or longer will complete all three sections of the questionnaires at three time points (baseline, exit, follow-up), taking an average of 37 (youth) or 32 (adult) minutes per survey. However, the average number of responses per participant for both youth and adult surveys is only twice per year due to response rate declines from baseline to exit to follow-up. Participants in services lasting 2-29 days will complete the first two sections of the questionnaires at two time points (baseline, exit), taking an average of 26 (youth) or 23 (adult) minutes to complete each survey. Participants in single-day services will complete Section 1 and 3-5 items from Section 2 at one time point (at exit), taking an average of 13 minutes for both youth and adult questionnaires. The revised youth questionnaire contains 94 questions, of which 24 relate to HIV/AIDS and the revised adult questionnaire contains 79 items, 29 of which relate to HIV/AIDS. This represents a substantial reduction from the current OMB-approved versions of the Youth and Adult Questionnaires (128 and 122 items).
In addition to the shortened versions of the Youth and Adult Questionnaires, SAMHSA is requesting approval for two brief forms for collecting dosage data. Program staff will complete the Individual Dosage Form after each one-on-one service encounter with every participant to provide information on the types of services delivered during the encounter and the duration of each service type. The form takes approximately three minutes to complete. Program staff will complete the Group Dosage Form after each group-format service encounter to provide similar information, with the addition of a list of the unique identification numbers of all participants attending the session. A typical group session is expected to have approximately 20 attendees and a typical Group Dosage Form takes about eight minutes to complete.
Respondent burden and intrusiveness have been limited to the extent possible while providing sufficient power to fulfill the cross-site evaluation's objectives. Procedures such as the use of unique identification numbers in place of personal identification information, security measures at grant sites for limiting access to completed forms, and analysis guidelines that limit the reporting of outcome results for subgroups with small sample sizes, safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Every effort has been made to coordinate cross-site data collection with local data collection efforts in an attempt to minimize respondent burden.
The cross-site evaluation results will have significant implications for the substance abuse and HIV/AIDS prevention fields, the allocation of grant funds, and other evaluation activities conducted by multiple Federal, State, and local government agencies. They will be used to develop federal policy in support of SAMHSA/CSAP program initiatives, inform the public of program outcomes and lessons learned, improve existing programs, and promote replication and dissemination of effective prevention strategies.
The following table displays estimates of the annualized hour burden for data collection using the Youth and Adult Questionnaires and the Individual and Group Dosage Forms. The expected numbers of participants by service duration and the numbers of completed dosage forms were estimated based on analysis of the data submitted by Cohort 7-10 grantees. The numbers are adjusted for expected response rates, also estimated based on data analysis. Program staff will complete an Individual Dosage Form for each one-on-one service encounter with every participant, spending an estimated three minutes per form. A typical grantee is expected to complete 1,316 Individual
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by January 21, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)'s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) aims to address two of SAMHSA's top substance abuse prevention priorities: Underage drinking (UAD; age 12 to 20) and prescription drug misuse and abuse (PDM; age 12 to 25) through the Strategic Prevention Framework Partnerships For Success (SPF-PFS) program. The program is scheduled through September 2018 to systematically collect and maintain community sub-recipient information, quarterly progress reports (QPR) and outcomes data submitted by the PFS grantees through the online Program for Evaluation in Prevention Contract (PEP-C) Management Reporting Tool (MRT). This data collection will place a new emphasis on the SPF-PFS impact on outcomes related to Prescription Drug Misuse, including the prevalence of prescription drug misuse and related consequences such as prescription drug poisonings and overdoses. SAMHSA is requesting approval for data collection through the PEP-C MRT using the instruments listed below:
• Contact Information: This instrument includes sections for Grantee Information, Grantee Staff, Sub-State Information, Community Subrecipient information, and Subrecipient Staff
• QPR: This instrument will gather data related to implementation of the SPF-PFS grant based on the SPF steps (Assessment, Capacity, Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation).
• Outcome Data: this instrument includes 4 separate sub-instruments that grantees will complete in varying time frames dependent on requirements.
These SPF-PFS performance monitoring measures will primarily be tools for SAMHSA project officers to systematically collect data to monitor grant program performance and outcomes along with grantee technical assistance needs. In addition to assessing activities related to and progress through the SPF steps, the performance monitoring instruments covered in this statement collect data to assess the following grantee required specific performance measures:
• Number of training and technical assistance activities per funded community provided by the grantee to support communities;
• Reach of training and technical assistance activities (numbers served) provided by the grantee;
• Percentage of subrecipient communities that submit data to the grantee data system.
The instruments also collect data to provide information for the following PFS required Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measure:
• Number of sub-recipient communities that improved on one or more targeted NOMs indicators (Outcome)
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by January 21, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
SAMHSA is conducting a national evaluation of the Now is the Time (NITT) initiative, which includes separate programs—NITT Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education)-State Educational Agency (SEA), Healthy Transitions, and two Minority Fellowship Programs (Youth and Addictions Counselors). These programs are united by their focus on capacity building, system change, and workforce development.
NITT—Project AWARE, which is the focus of this activity, represents a response to the third and fourth components of President Obama's NITT Initiative: making schools safer and focusing on access to mental health services. NITT—Project AWARE is authorized under Section 520A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, and addresses the Healthy People 2020 Mental Health and Mental Disorders Topic Area. Project AWARE grantees are required to provide mental health awareness training to adults who interact with youth, create partnerships to connect youth to mental health services, and create a school climate to reduce violence. NITT—Project AWARE grants were made to 20 state education agencies, each of which will partner with 3-5 local education agencies (LEAs or school districts) in their state to plan and implement Project AWARE activities. Project AWARE activities may be implemented in all schools in the district or may be focused on a specific type or number of schools.
The evaluation of NITT—Project AWARE will examine the process, outcomes, and impact of activities by SEA grantees and their LEA and school partners. The study will evaluate the capacity of SEAs to increase awareness of mental health issues among school-aged youth; provide training for school personnel and other adults who interact with youth to detect and respond to mental illness in children and young adults; connect children, youth, and families/caregivers who may have behavioral health issues with appropriate services; and improve conditions for learning and behavioral health outcomes for all school-aged youth (grades K-12). At the grantee, district, and school levels, the evaluation will collect data from key staff in all partner organizations. At each Project AWARE and comparison school, annual surveys will be used to collect data from the school principal (or designee), students, and teachers, beginning in spring 2016. The NITT—Project AWARE evaluation will also rely on information collected from existing sources or noted in award requirements.
Site notification and recruitment of Project AWARE grantees and their school and district partners is being conducted for the purpose of enlisting sites for participation in the Project AWARE component of the NITT evaluation. Site notification and recruitment will be conducted in school year 2015-2016. Data collection is planned to begin in spring 2016. Subsequent OMB packages will be submitted separately for each of the three program evaluations (
Current activities are focused on notification and recruitment of state grantees, grantee and nongrantee districts, and grantee and nongrantee schools. Each grantee state will be asked to support the evaluation by encouraging the grantee districts to cooperate with the national evaluation contractor when contacted, enlist the participation of grantee schools, and provide access to data available through the district's management information system (MIS). Each grantee district will also be asked to assist the study with identifying and encouraging the participation of comparison (i.e, nongrantee) schools, where possible. For each treatment (
If a comparison school cannot be identified or recruited from the same grantee district as the treatment school, an attempt will be made to recruit nongrantee districts and schools in a neighboring community where potential matched schools have been identified.
During site notification and recruitment, the evaluation contractor will send packets that include a letter, brochure, and frequently asked questions, and will follow up with a telephone call. The following entities will be contacted:
• All 20 NITT—Project AWARE grantees at the state level
• An estimated 90 local education agency partners (3-5 districts per state, under the grant requirements).
• An estimated 396 schools in grantee districts that will be implementing Project AWARE activities (“treatment schools”) (approximately 4-5 schools per grantee district are expected to participate in the evaluation). This estimate includes additional schools that may need to be contacted to replace grantee schools that are unable or unwilling to participate.
• An estimated 432 schools in grantee districts that are NOT currently implementing Project AWARE activities (“comparison schools”). This estimate includes additional schools that may need to be contacted to replace comparison schools that are unable or unwilling to participate.
• Approximately 30 nongrantee districts will be identified and recruited
• Approximately 90 comparison schools in nongrantee districts will be identified and recruited
The table below summarizes the reporting burden associated with this notification and recruitment activity. The total burden is 1,058 hours.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by January 21, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of availability of grant application and application deadline.
As required by the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is publishing this notice describing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program application process, deadlines, and award selection criteria. This notice explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of the national fire service leadership during the annual meeting of the Criteria Development Panel, which was held October 27-28, 2014. The application period for the FY 2015 AFG Program will be held December 7, 2015 through January 15, 2015, and will be announced on the AFG Web site (
Grant applications for the Assistance to Firefighters Grants will be accepted electronically at
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, DHS/FEMA, 800 K Street NW., MS 3620, Washington, DC 20472-3620.
Catherine Patterson, Branch Chief, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Branch, 1-866-274-0960.
The AFG Program makes grants directly to fire departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical services (EMS) organizations, and state fire training academies (SFTAs) for the purpose of enhancing the abilities of first responders to protect the health and safety of the public, as well as the first-responder personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards.
Applications for the FY 2015 AFG Program will be submitted and processed online at
In 2015, Congress appropriated $340,000,000 pursuant to the
The authorizing statute directs FEMA to administer the appropriations according to the following requirements:
• Career (fire department): Not less than 25 percent of available grant funds.
• Volunteer (fire department): Not less than 25 percent of available grant funds.
• Combination (fire department) and departments using paid-on-call firefighting personnel—not less than 25 percent of available grant funds.
• Open Competition: Career, volunteer, and combination fire departments and fire departments using paid-on-call firefighting personnel—not less than 10 percent of available grant funds awarded.
• Emergency Medical Services Providers: Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations; not less than 3.5 percent of available grants funds awarded, with nonaffiliated EMS providers receiving no more than 2 percent of the total available grant funds.
• State Fire Training Academies (SFTAs): No more than 3 percent of available grant funds shall be collectively awarded to state fire training academy applicants, with a maximum of $500,000 to be awarded per applicant.
• Vehicles: Not more than 25 percent of available grant funds may be used for the purchase of vehicles; 10 percent of the total vehicle funds will be dedicated to funding ambulances. The allocation of funding will be distributed as equally as possible among urban, suburban, and rural community applicants. The remaining Vehicle Acquisition funds will be awarded competitively without regard to community classification.
• Micro Grants: This is a voluntary funding limitation choice made by the applicant for requests submitted for Operations and Safety Grant Component Program; it is not an additional funding opportunity. Micro Grants are awards that have a federal participation (share) that does not exceed $25,000. Only fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations are eligible to choose Micro Grants, and the only eligible Micro Grants activities are Training, Equipment, PPE, and Wellness and Fitness. Applicants that select Micro Grants as a funding opportunity may receive additional consideration for award. If an applicant selects Micro Grants in their application, they will be limited in the total amount of funding their organization can be awarded; if they are requesting funding in excess of $25,000 federal participation, they should not select Micro Grants.
Since 2001, the AFG Program has helped firefighters and other first responders to obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. FEMA awards the grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that best address the AFG Program's priorities and provide the most compelling justification. Applications that best address the Program's priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service personnel.
Prior to making a grant award, FEMA is required by 31 U.S.C. 3321 and 41 U.S.C. 2313 to review information available through any Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-designated repositories of government-wide eligibility qualification or financial integrity information. Therefore, application evaluation criteria may include the following risk based considerations of the applicant: (1) Financial stability; (2) quality of management systems and ability to meet management standards; (3) history of performance in managing federal award; (4) reports and findings from audits; and (5) ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements.
FEMA will rank all complete and submitted applications based on how well they match program priorities for the type of jurisdiction(s) served. Answers to activity-specific questions provide information used to determine each application's ranking relative to the stated program priorities.
Funding priorities and criteria for evaluating AFG applications are established by FEMA based on the recommendations from the Criteria Development Panel (CDP). The CDP is comprised of fire service professionals that make recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new or the modification of previously established funding priorities, as well as developing criteria for awarding grants. The content of the NOFO reflects implementation of the CDP's recommendations with respect to the priorities and evaluation criteria for awards.
The nine major fire service organizations represented on the CDP are:
• International Association of Fire Chiefs
• International Association of Fire Fighters
• National Volunteer Fire Council
• National Fire Protection Association
• National Association of State Fire Marshals
• International Association of Arson Investigators
• International Society of Fire Service Instructors
• North American Fire Training Directors
• Congressional Fire Service Institute
AFG applications are reviewed through a multi-phase process. First, applications are electronically pre-scored and ranked; then scored competitively by (no less than three) members of the Peer Review Panel. Applications are also evaluated through a series of internal FEMA review processes for completeness, adherence to programmatic guidelines, technical feasibility, and anticipated effectiveness of the proposed project(s). The review process is outlined below:
The application undergoes an electronic pre-scoring process based on established program priorities listed within the NOFO. Application narratives are not reviewed during pre-scoring. Request details and budget information should comply with program guidance and statutory funding limitations. The pre-score is 50 percent of the total application score.
Applications with the highest pre-score will be evaluated by a peer review process. The peer review is comprised of fire service representatives recommended by CDP national organizations. The panelists assess the merits of each application with respect to the detail provided in the narrative section of the application, including the evaluation elements listed in the Narrative Evaluation Criteria below. The panel will independently score each project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application, and document its findings. A consensus is not required. The panel score is 50 percent of the total application score.
The highest ranked applications are deemed within the fundable range. Applications that are in the fundable range undergo both a technical review by a subject matter expert (SME), as well as a FEMA program office review prior to being recommended for award. The FEMA program office will assess the request with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to recommending an application for award.
Once the technical evaluation process is complete, the cumulative score for each application will be determined and a final ranking of applications will be generated. FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking and the required funding limitations in statute.
Applicants should describe their financial need and how consistent it is with the intent of the AFG Program. This statement should include details describing the applicant's financial distress, summarizing budget constraints, unsuccessful attempts to secure other funding, and proving the financial distress is out of their control.
This statement should clearly explain the applicant's project objectives and the relationship between those objectives and the applicant's budget and risk analysis. The applicant should describe the various activities applied for with respect to any program priority or facility modifications, ensuring they are consistent with project objectives, the applicant's mission, and any national, state, and/or local requirements. Applicants should link the proposed expenses to operations and safety, as well as the completion of the project goals
Applicants should describe how they plan to address the operations and personal safety needs of their organization, including cost effectiveness and sharing assets. This statement should also include details about gaining the maximum benefits from grant funding by citing reasonable or required costs, such as specific overhead and administrative costs. The applicant's request should also be consistent with their mission and identify how funding will benefit their organization and personnel.
This statement should explain how this funding request will enhance the organization's overall effectiveness. It should address how this request will improve daily operations and reduce the organization's common risk(s). Applicants should include how frequently the requested item(s) will be used and in what capacity. Applicants should also indicate how the requested item(s) will help the community and increase the organization's ability to save additional lives and property.
FEMA considers the following as hospitals under the AFG program:
• Clinics
• Medical centers
• Medical college or university
• Infirmary
• Surgery centers
• Any other institution, association, or foundation providing medical, surgical, or psychiatric care and/or treatment for the sick or injured.
• FEMA considers two or more separate fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations sharing facilities as being one organization. If two or more organizations share facilities, and each organization submits an application in the same program area, FEMA may deem all of those program area applications to be ineligible to avoid any duplication of benefits.
• Fire-based EMS organizations are
Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that a grantee may receive from the AFG Program in any single fiscal year (15 U.S.C. 2229(c)(2)) based on the population served. Awards will be limited based on the size of the population protected by the applicant, as indicated below. Notwithstanding the annual limits stated below, the FEMA Administrator may not award a grant in an amount that exceeds one percent of the available grants funds in such fiscal year, except
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with 100,000 people or fewer, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $1 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people but not more than 500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $2 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more than 1 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $3 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1 million people but not more than 2,500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $6 million for any fiscal year, but is subject to the one percent aggregate cap of $3,400,000 for FY 2015.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 2,500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $9 million in any fiscal year, but is subject to the one percent aggregate cap of $3,400,000 for FY 2015.
• FEMA may not waive the caps on the maximum amount of available grant funds awarded based upon population.
The cumulative total of the federal share of awards in Operations and Safety, Regional and Vehicle Acquisition activities will be considered when assessing award amounts and any limitations thereto. Applicants may request funding up to the statutory limit on each of their applications.
For example, an applicant that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people but not more than 500,000 people may request up to $2 million on their Operations and Safety Application and up to $2 million on their Vehicle Acquisition Request. However, should both grants be awarded, the applicant would have to choose which award to accept if the cumulative value of both applications exceeds the statutory limits.
Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in accordance with applicable federal regulations governing grants in effect at the time a grant is awarded to a grantee, but they are not required to have the cost-share at the time of application nor at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA will contact potential awardees to determine whether the grantee has the funding in hand or if the grantee has a viable plan to obtain the funding necessary to fulfill the cost-sharing requirement.
In general, an eligible applicant seeking a grant shall agree to make available non-federal funds equal to not less than 15 percent of the grant awarded. However, the cost share will vary as follows based on the size of the population served by the organization:
• Applicants serving areas with populations above 20,000 but not more than 1 million shall agree to make available non-federal funds equal to not less than 10 percent of the total project cost.
• Applicants that serve populations of 20,000 or less must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-federal funds equal to 5 percent of the total project cost.
The cost share of state fire training academies and joint/regional projects will be based on the entire state or region, not the population of the host organization.
On a case by case basis, FEMA may allow grantees that already own assets (equipment or vehicles) to use the trade-in allowance/credit value of those assets as “cash” for the purpose of meeting the cost-share obligation of their AFG award. In-kind cost-share matches are not allowed.
Grant recipients under this grant program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to as a “maintenance of expenditure” requirement in that statute). A grant recipient shall agree to maintain during the term of the grant the applicant's aggregate expenditures relating to the activities allowable under the NOFO at not less than 80 percent (80%) of the average amount of such expenditures in the two (2) fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
In cases of demonstrated economic hardship, and on the application of the grant recipient, the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce a grant recipient's cost share requirement or maintenance of expenditure requirement. As required by statute, the Administrator of FEMA has established guidelines for determining what constitutes economic hardship and published these guidelines at FEMA's Web site (
Prior to the start of the FY 2015 AFG application period, FEMA will conduct applicant workshops and/or Internet webinars to inform potential applicants about the AFG Program. In addition, FEMA will provide applicants with information at the AFG Web site (
Organizations may submit one application per application period in each of the three AFG Program areas,
Applicants will be advised to access the application electronically at
In completing the application, applicants will be asked to provide relevant information on their organization's characteristics, call volume, and existing capabilities. Applicants will be asked to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the AFG funding priorities, which are described below. In addition, each applicant must complete four separate narratives for each project or grant activity requested.
In 2012, the System for Award Management (SAM) replaced the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Per 2 CFR 25.200, all grant applicants and recipients are now required to register in
FEMA must explain any differences between the published guidelines and the recommendations made by the CDP and publish this information in the
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards—On December 26, 2014, DHS adopted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
A crosswalk that highlights policy changes, clarifications, and updates to policy provisions, is available at:
Equipment Priorities for Nonaffiliated EMS Organizations—As the basic mission of nonaffiliated EMS organizations is to provide Basic Life Support (BLS)/Advanced Life Support (ALS) care and transport in support of the public and emergency responders; all rescue/extrication equipment will now be considered a Medium priority for EMS organizations.
Product Lifecycles—Historically, for most eligible equipment (
Transitioning Titles in Emergency Medical Services—The US Department of Transportation, under the National EMS Scope of Practice Model, is in the process of changing titles for EMS providers. Under this program, the titles below are changing, and FEMA will incorporate these changes into each grant cycle.
• First Responder to Emergency Medical Responder (EMR)
• Emergency Medical Technician-Basic (EMT-B) to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
• Emergency Medical Technician Intermediate/85 (EMT-I) to Advanced EMT (AEMT)
• Emergency Medical Technician Intermediate/99 to Paramedic
• EMT-Paramedic (EMT-P) to Community Paramedics (Paramedics with Primary Care certification)
The funding priorities, recommended by a panel of representatives from the nation's fire service leadership, have been accepted by DHS for the purposes of implementing the AFG Program, are outlined in the Fiscal Year 2015 Notice of Funding Opportunity. Graphical charts, with rating criteria, have been created to easily depict whether activities were a (H) High, (M) Medium or (L) Low funding priority. These rating criteria provide an understanding of the AFG Program's priorities and the expected cost-effectiveness of any proposed project(s).
Panelists will assess the administrative costs requested in each application and determine whether the request is reasonable and in the best interest of the Program.
15 U.S.C. 2229.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Re-established Computer Matching Program.
This document provides notice of the existence of a computer matching program between the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the California Department of Social Services, titled “Verification Division DHS-USCIS/CA-DSS.”
The dates of the matching program are from January 27, 2016, and continuing for 18 months through July 26, 2017. The matching program may be extended for up to an additional 12 months, if certain conditions are met.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services provides this notice in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503) and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) (Privacy Act); Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 54 FR 25818 (June 19, 1989); and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix I, 65 FR 77677 (December 12, 2000).
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS-USCIS) is the source agency and the California Department of Social Services (CA-DSS) is the recipient agency.
Section 121 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, Public Law 99-603, as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2168 (1996), requires DHS to establish a system for the verification of immigration status of alien applicants for, or recipients of, certain types of benefits as specified within IRCA, and to make this system available to state agencies that administer such benefits. Section 121(c) of IRCA amends Section 1137 of the Social Security Act and other sections of law that pertain to federal entitlement benefit programs. Section 121(c) requires state agencies administering these programs to use DHS-USCIS's verification system to make eligibility determinations in order to prevent the issuance of benefits to ineligible alien applicants. The VIS database is the DHS-USCIS system available to the CA-DSS and other covered agencies for use in making these eligibility determinations.
CA-DSS will access information contained in VIS for the purpose of confirming the immigration status of alien applicants for, or recipients of, benefits it administers in order to discharge its obligation to conduct such verifications pursuant to Section 1137 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(a),
This Computer Matching Agreement provides the CA-DSS with electronic access to immigration status information contained within DHS-USCIS's Verification Information System (VIS). CA-DSS uses the immigration status information to determine whether an applicant is eligible for benefits under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) programs administered by the CA-DSS.
DHS-USCIS will provide the following to CA-DSS: Records in the DHS-USCIS VIS database containing information related to the status of aliens and other persons on whom DHS-USCIS has a record as an applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary.
CA-DSS will provide the following to DHS-USCIS: CA-DSS records pertaining to alien and naturalized/derived United States citizen applicants for, or recipients of, entitlement benefit programs administered by the State.
CA-DSS will match the following records with DHS-USCIS records:
• Alien Registration Number (A-Number)
• I-94 Number
• Last Name
• First Name
• Middle Name
• Date of Birth
• Nationality
• Social Security number (SSN)
DHS-USCIS will match the following records with CA-DSS records:
• A-Number
• I-94 Number
• Last Name
• First Name
• Middle Name
• Date of Birth
• Country of Birth (not nationality)
• SSN (if available)
• Date of Entry
• Immigration Status Data
• Sponsorship Information (sponsor's full name, SSN, and address)
DHS/USCIS-004 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program System of Records Notice, 77 FR 47415 (August 8, 2012).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the Revised Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake for public review and comment. This revised draft recovery plan includes delisting objectives and criteria, and specific actions necessary to delist the species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We request review and comment on this draft recovery plan from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public.
We must receive any comments on this revised draft recovery plan on or before February 22, 2016.
You may obtain a copy of this revised draft recovery plan from our Web site at
Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, at the above street address or telephone number (see
Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We listed the giant garter snake (
The giant garter snake has specific habitat needs that include summer aquatic habitat for foraging, bankside basking areas with nearby emergent vegetation for cover and thermal regulation, and upland refugia for extended periods of inactivity. Perennial wetlands provide the highest quality habitat for the giant garter snake, and rice lands, with interconnected water conveyance structures, serve as an alternative habitat in the absence of higher quality wetlands.
The loss and subsequent fragmentation of habitat is the primary threat to the giant garter snake throughout the Central Valley of California. Habitat loss has occurred from urban expansion, agricultural conversion, and flood control. Habitat fragmentation restricts dispersal and isolates populations of the giant garter snake, increasing the likelihood of inbreeding, decreasing fitness, and reducing genetic diversity, and ultimately has resulted in the loss of the snake from the southern one-third of its range in former wetlands associated with the historical Buena Vista, Tulare, and Kern Lake beds. In addition to habitat loss, the remaining Central Valley populations of the giant garter snake are subject to the cumulative effects of a number of other existing and potential threats, including: roads and vehicular traffic, climate change, and predation by non-native species.
The purpose of a recovery plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of species so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. A recovery plan includes scientific information about the species and provides criteria that enable us to gauge whether downlisting or delisting the species is warranted. Furthermore, recovery plans help guide our recovery efforts by describing actions we consider necessary for each species' conservation and by estimating time and costs for implementing needed recovery measures.
The goal of this revised draft recovery plan is to improve the status of giant garter snake so that it can be delisted. To meet the recovery goal of delisting, the following objectives have been identified:
1. Establish and protect self-sustaining populations of the giant garter snake throughout the full ecological, geographical, and genetic range of the species.
2. Restore and conserve healthy Central Valley wetland ecosystems that function to support the giant garter snake and its community members.
3. Ameliorate or eliminate, to the extent possible, the threats that caused the species to be listed or are otherwise of concern, and any foreseeable future threats.
The strategy used to recover the giant garter snake is focused on protecting existing occupied habitat and identifying and protecting areas for habitat restoration, enhancement, or creation, including areas that are needed to provide connectivity between populations. Appropriate management is needed for all giant garter snake conservation lands to ensure that stable and viable populations can be maintained in occupied areas, and that colonization will be promoted in restored and enhanced unoccupied habitat. As the giant garter snake meets delisting criteria, we will review its status and consider it for delisting on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We solicit written comments on this revised draft recovery plan described in this notice. All comments received by the date specified in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We developed this revised draft recovery plan under the authority of section 4(f) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). We publish this notice under section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before January 21, 2016.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import one male captive-born mandrill (
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to take, import, export or re-export, and purchase in interstate or foreign commerce, blood, hair and other tissue samples, as well as salvaged material from any endangered or threatened wildlife exotic to the United States, for the purpose of scientific research. Samples are to be obtained from wild, captive-held and/or captive-born animals. Samples collected in the wild are to be taken opportunistically during immobilization of animals by local wildlife management officials or trained veterinarians, and animals may not be harmed for the purpose of collecting such samples. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for approval to conduct certain activities with bird species covered under the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916). This notice is provided pursuant to section 112(4) of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, 50 CFR 15.26(c).
The applicant wishes to establish a cooperative breeding program for red-fan parrot, also known as hawk-headed parrot (
If approved, the program will be overseen by the Zoological Association of America, Punta Gorda, Florida.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit application for take of the federally listed American burying beetle resulting from activities associated with the geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before January 21, 2016.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's ITP application by one of the following methods. Please refer to the permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at Environmental Review, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (TE80998B) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Applicant requests a new permit for gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the dates indicated.
Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
These supplementals and surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Reclamation and are necessary for the management of resources. The lands surveyed are:
The supplemental plat showing the subdivision of the SE
The supplemental plat showing amended lottings and based upon the dependent resurvey plat accepted July 13, 1943, Township 35 North, Range 88 West, Sixth Principal Meridian,
The plats and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, portions of the subdivisional lines, and adjusted 1909 meanders of the Green River, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 31 and 35, Township 23 North, Range 110 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 893, was accepted September 8, 2015.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary, portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of section 19, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Lot 7, section 19, Township 56 North, Range 97 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 910, was accepted September 8, 2015.
The plat and field notes representing the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision of section 20, Township 1 North, Range 4 East, Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 911, was accepted September 8, 2015.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 12 North, Range 117 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 912, was accepted September 8, 2015.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 22, Township 19 North, Range 85 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 915, was accepted September 8, 2015.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 2 and 3, Township 13 North, Range 84 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 916, was accepted November 18, 2015.
The plat and field notes representing the survey of the subdivision of sections 34 and 35, Township 14 North, Range 84 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 917, was accepted November 18, 2015.
The supplemental plat showing amended lottings, and based upon the dependent resurvey plat accepted March 24, 2006 and survey plat accepted July 20, 1859, Township 31 North, Range 4 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 185, was accepted December 10, 2015.
The supplemental plat showing amended lottings, and based upon the dependent resurvey plat accepted March 24, 2006 and survey plat accepted July 20, 1859, Township 32 North, Range 4 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 185, was accepted December 10, 2015.
The supplemental plat showing amended lottings, and based upon the dependent resurvey plat accepted September 28, 2006 and survey plat accepted July 20, 1859, Township 32 North, Range 5 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 185, was accepted December 10, 2015.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request approval to continue the collection of information for its regulations regarding the standards for certification of blasters. This information collection activity was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and assigned control number 1029-0080.
Comments on the proposed information collection activity must be received by February 22, 2016, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To receive a copy of the information collection request, contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783 or by email.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for renewed approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR part 850—Permanent Regulatory Program Requirements—Standards for Certification of Blasters. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request approval to continue collecting information for its regulations regarding reclamation on private land. Our regulations establish procedures for recovery of the cost of reclamation activities conducted on private property. OSMRE, the State, or the Indian tribe has the discretionary authority to appraise the land and place or waive a lien against land reclaimed by the regulatory authority if the reclamation results in a significant increase in the fair market value.
This information collection activity was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 1029-0057.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by February 22, 2016, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To receive a copy of the information collection request, contact John Trelease, at (202) 208-2783 or by email at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for approval. The collection is contained in 30 CFR part 882—Reclamation on Private Lands. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1306 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of large residential washers from China, provided for in subheading 8450.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by February 1, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by February 8, 2016.
Effective Date: December 16, 2015.
Chris Cassise (202-708-5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 17, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of FeraDyne Outdoors LLC of Cartersville, Georgia and Out RAGE LLC of Cartersville, Georgia. A supplement was filed on December 4, 2015. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain arrowheads with deploying blades and components thereof and packaging therefor by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE44,144 (“the '144 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,517,454 (“the '454 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,758,176 (“the '176 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,986,141 (“the '141 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,068,806 (“the '806 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,771,298 (“the '298 patent”); U.S. Patent No. D710,962 (“the D'962 patent”); U.S. Patent No. D711,489 (“the D'489 patent”); and of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,812,058 (“the '058 mark”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).
Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on December 16, 2015,
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:
(a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain arrowheads with deploying blades and components thereof and packaging therefor by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 38, 42, 48, 68, and 75 of the '144 patent; claims 1-3, 5, and 8 of the '454 patent; claims 1 and 3 of the '176 patent; claims 1 and 8 of the '141 patent; claims 1 and 3 of the '806 patent; claims 1, 5, and 10 of the '298 patent; the claim of the D'962 patent; and the claim of the D'489 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(b) whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain arrowheads with deploying blades and components thereof and packaging therefor by reason of infringement of the '058 mark, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On December 15, 2015, a proposed Modification to the 2011 Consent Decree in
On October 18, 2011, the Court entered the 2011 Consent Decree between the parties resolving Plaintiffs' claims that the City of Newport violated the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d) resulting from Newport's operation of its sewer system and wastewater control plant. As part of the injunctive relief provisions of the 2011 Consent Decree, Newport was required to investigate the configuration of its sewer system and analyze additional work needed to eliminate discharges of sanitary sewer waste and comply with the CWA. That portion of the injunctive relief has been completed and the new information obtained during this investigation requires the alteration of certain deadlines and types of work contained in the 2011 Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Modification to the 2011 Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to:
During the public comment period, the proposed Modification to the 2011 Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree and Stipulation and Order in
The proposed Consent Decree and Stipulation and Order concern a complaint filed by the United States and the State of West Virginia, by and through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, against James C. Justice, II, the James C. Justice Companies, Inc., and High Mountain Living, LLC, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1319 and 1344, and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act, W. Va. Code Chapter 22, Article 11,
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree and Stipulation and Order for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Austin D. Saylor, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree and Stipulation and Order may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Bluefield Division), 601 Federal Street, Room 2303, Bluefield, WV 24701. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree and Stipulation and Order may be examined electronically at
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (Department) is issuing this notice to announce the 2016 Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs) for the employment of temporary or seasonal nonimmigrant foreign workers (H-2A workers) to perform agricultural labor or services.
AEWRs are the minimum wage rates the Department has determined must be offered and paid by employers to H-2A workers and workers in corresponding employment for a particular occupation and area so that the wages of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely affected. In this notice, the Department announces the annual update of the AEWRs which must be paid for agricultural work performed by H-2A and U.S. workers on or after the effective date of this notice.
William W. Thompson, II, Acting Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, U.S. Department of Labor, Box 12-200, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security will not approve an employer's petition for the admission of H-2A nonimmigrant temporary agricultural workers in the U.S. unless the petitioner has received from the Department an H-2A labor certification. The labor certification provides that: (1) There are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, and qualified and who will be available at the time and place needed to perform the labor or services involved in the petition; and (2) the employment of the foreign worker(s) in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c)(1), and 1188(a); 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5); 20 CFR 655.100.
The Department's H-2A regulations at 20 CFR 655.120(l) provide that employers must pay their H-2A workers and workers in corresponding employment at least the highest of: (1) The AEWR; (2) the prevailing hourly wage rate; (3) the prevailing piece rate; (4) the agreed-upon collective bargaining wage rate, if applicable; or (5) the Federal or State minimum wage rate, in effect at the time the work is performed.
Except as otherwise provided in 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, the region-wide AEWR for all agricultural employment (except those occupations characterized by other than a reasonably regular workday or workweek as described in 20 CFR 655.102) for which temporary H-2A certification is being sought is equal to the annual weighted average hourly wage rate for field and livestock workers (combined) in the State or region as published annually by the United States Department of
Pursuant to the H-2A regulations at 20 CFR 655.173, the Department will publish a separate
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of Public Comment Period.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking public comment on a draft memorandum titled, “
The 30-day public comment period on the draft memorandum begins on the day it is published in the
Interested parties should provide comments at the following link:
Mr. Paul Oliver, OMB, at 202-395-0372 or
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing a new policy to improve the management and acquisition of commonly-purchased enterprise software. The policy advances the Category Management initiative established in the OMB Memorandum dated December 4, 2014,
The National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. EST.
(1) Chairman's opening remarks; (2) Approval of minutes of November 18, 2015; (3) Discussion of Higher Education Companion Brief; and (4) Committee Chair's Closing Remarks.
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office send an email message to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) related to a request to amend Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15 and Docket No. 72-41, issued to the Southern California Edison Company (SCE or “the licensee”), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter “SONGS” or “the facility”), including the general-license Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in San Diego County, California. The requested amendments would permit licensee security personnel to use certain firearms and ammunition feeding devices not previously permitted, notwithstanding State, local and certain Federal firearms laws or regulations that otherwise prohibit such actions.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0023 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Marlayna Vaaler, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3178, email:
The NRC is considering a request to amend Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15 and Docket No. 72-41, issued to SCE for the operation of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, including the general-license ISFSI, located in San Diego County, California, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 of title 10 of the
The NRC published a draft EA and a FONSI on the proposed action for public comment in the
The proposed action would permit security personnel at SONGS during the performance of their official duties, to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use certain firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices not previously permitted to be owned or possessed, notwithstanding State, local, and certain Federal firearms laws or regulations that otherwise prohibit such actions.
The proposed action is in accordance with the SONGS application dated August 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13242A277), as supplemented by letters dated December 31, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14007A496), May 15, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14139A424), and February 10, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15044A047).
The proposed action would allow the transfer, receipt, possession, transportation, importation, and use of those firearms and devices needed in the performance of official duties required for the protection of SONGS and associated special nuclear material, consistent with the SONGS NRC-approved security plan.
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action would only allow the use of those firearms and devices necessary to protect the facility and associated special nuclear material, consistent with the SONGS NRC-approved security plan. Therefore, the proposed action would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accidents. In addition, the proposed action would not change the types and the amounts of any effluents that may be released off-site. There would also be no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there would be no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The proposed action would not impact land, air, or water resources, including biota. In addition, the proposed action would not result in any socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts or impacts to historic and cultural resources. Therefore, there would also be no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed action (license amendment) would not result in significant environmental impacts.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denying the proposed action (
The proposed action would not involve the use of any resources.
The staff did not consult with any other Federal Agency or State of California agencies regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The licensee has requested a license amendment to permit licensee security personnel, in the performance of official duties, to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use certain firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices not previously permitted to be owned or possessed, notwithstanding State, local, and certain Federal firearms laws or regulations that would otherwise prohibit such actions.
On the basis of the information presented in this environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action would not cause any significant environmental impact and would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. In addition, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for the evaluation of this proposed action.
Other than the licensee's letter dated August 28, 2013, there are no other environmental documents associated with this review. This document is available for public inspection as indicated above.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from November 24, 2015, to December 7, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on December 8, 2015.
Comments must be filed by January 21, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0276 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0276, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by February 22, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by February 22, 2016.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment affects the PNPP EP [Emergency Plan] and associated EALs [Emergency Action Level]; it does not alter the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment does not change the design function of any system, structure, or component and does not change the way the plant is maintained or operated. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident mitigating feature or increase the likelihood of malfunction for plant structures, systems, and components.
The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses associated with the PNPP Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 accidents because plant operation, structures, systems, components, accident initiators, and accident mitigation functions remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment affects the PNPP EP and associated EALs; it does not alter the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment does not change the design function of any system, structure, or component and does not change the way the plant is operated or maintained. The proposed amendment does not create a credible failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiator not already considered in the design and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis functions and to the controlling values of parameters to account for various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The proposed amendment affects the PNPP EP and associated EALs; it does not alter the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the plant and does not change methods of plant operation within prescribed limits, and does not affect design and licensing basis functions or controlling values of parameters for plant systems, structures, and components.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is of an administrative nature and does not impact the physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed changes. Although licensed operator qualifications and training may have an indirect impact on accidents previously evaluated, the proposed change does not reduce any operator qualification or training requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any SSCs important to safety.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect on the availability, operability, or performance of safety-related systems and components. The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis.
The proposed change does not change or lessen the qualification requirements for licensed operators. One purpose of the 1987 rule change (Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments) was to improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by improving the operator licensing process and examination content. The NRC reviewed the licensed operator training program experience guidelines in effect at the time of the 1987 rule change and determined that they were equivalent to the baseline experience criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, which was issued in conjunction with the rule change. The proposed change maintains licensed operator training and qualification requirements consistent with 10 CFR 55 and ensures properly qualified licensed operators operate the facility.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design basis events which impose initiation of the AFW [auxiliary feedwater] System requirements are loss of normal MFW, main steamline break, LOOP [loss of offsite power], and SBLOCA [small break loss-of-coolant accident]. These design bases event evaluations assume actuation of the AFW System due to LOOP signal, SG [steam generator] water level—low-low or a safety injection signal. The anticipatory motor driven AFW pump autostart signals from the MFW pumps are not credited in any DBAs [design basis accidents] and are, therefore, not part of the primary success path for postulated accident mitigation, as defined by 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii), Criterion 3. Modifying Completion Time clock activation requirements, providing a Condition and Required Actions for more than one inoperable channel for this function, and modifying Modes 1 and 2 Applicability for this function will not impact any previously evaluated design basis accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This TS change allows for one or more MFW pump channels to be inoperable during Modes 1 and 2 and has an operational allowance during Modes 1 and 2 for placing MFW pumps in service or securing MFW pumps. This change involves an anticipatory AFW auto-start function that is not credited in the accident analysis. Since this change only affects the conditions at which this auto-start function needs to be operable and does not affect the function that actuates AFW due to LOOP, low-low steam generator level or a safety injection signal, it will not be an initiator to a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This TS change involves the automatic start of the AFW pumps due to trip of both MFW pumps, which is not an assumed start signal for design basis events. This change does not modify any values or limits involved in a safety related function or accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise TS Section 5.5.6 to conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and standards,” paragraph (f) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves. TS Section 5.5.6 currently references the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, requirements for the inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves. The proposed changes would reference the ASME OM Code as applicable, which is consistent with 10 CFR 50.55a, paragraph (f), “Inservice testing requirements.” In addition, the proposed changes clarify that the extension allowance of SR 3.0.2 only applies to the frequency table listed in the TS, if applicable, as part of the Inservice Testing Program and to normal and accelerated inservice testing frequencies of two years or less. The
The proposed changes are administrative in nature, do not affect any accident initiators, do not affect the ability to successfully respond to previously evaluated accidents and do not affect radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, the probability or radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise TS Section 5.5.6 to conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves. TS Section 5.5.6 currently references the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, requirements for the inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves. The proposed changes would reference the ASME OM Code as applicable, which is consistent with 10 CFR 50.55a(f). In addition, the proposed changes clarify that the extension allowance of SR 3.0.2 only applies to the frequency table listed in the TS, if applicable, as part of the Inservice Testing Program and to normal and accelerated inservice testing frequencies of two years or less. The definitions of the frequencies are not changed by the requested amendment.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.5.6 do not affect the performance of any structure, system, or component credited with mitigating any accident previously evaluated and do not introduce any new modes of system operation or failure mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions during and following postulated accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the function of the reactor coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients. The proposed changes revise TS Section 5.5.6 to conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves.
TS Section 5.5.6 currently references the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, requirements for the inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves. The proposed changes would reference the ASME OM Code as applicable, which is consistent with 10 CFR 50.55a(f). In addition, the proposed changes clarify that the extension allowance of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 only applies to the frequency table listed in the TS, if applicable, as part of the Inservice Testing Program and to normal and accelerated inservice testing frequencies of two years or less. The definitions of the frequencies are not changed by the requested amendment.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 25, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 3, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated November 30, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated December 4, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated November 30, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On December 15, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2016-53 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 23, 2015. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2016-53 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 23, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 39 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-38 and CP2016-47 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 39 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 23, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
In Attachment B to the Request, tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 appear to calculate contract prices using percentage discounts off of Commercial Base and Commercial Plus prices. Request, Attachment B at 3-4. In Order No. 2814, the Commission approved the elimination of the Commercial Base and the Commercial Plus price categories for the First-Class Package Service product.
Additionally, in Section V of Attachment B to the Request, the Postal Service refers to a “Master Agreement.” Request, Attachment B at 6. Please describe the contents of the Master Agreement and explain whether its terms have any impact on the percentage discounts listed in tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 referenced above. If necessary, the Postal Service should file a copy of the Master Agreement with its response.
The Postal Service's responses are due no later than December 18, 2015.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-38 and CP2016-47 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an
3. The Postal Service's response to the request for supplemental information is due no later than December 18, 2015.
4. Comments are due no later than December 23, 2015.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Parcel Select Contract 12 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-37 and CP2016-46 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Parcel Select Contract 12 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than December 23, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-37 and CP2016-46 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 23, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3, Forwarding or Proxy and other Issuer Materials; Proxy Voting, to conform to the rules of EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA (together with BZX, BYX and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
EDGA and EDGX recently filed proposed rule changes with the Commission to restructure and amend their Rules 3.22. Proxy Voting, and 13.3, Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer Materials, to conform to BYX and BZX Rule 13.3.
In sum, paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3 requires Members to transmit proxy materials and other communications to beneficial owners of securities. The Exchange notes paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3 is substantially similar to EDGA and EDGX Rules 13.3(a) which also requires Members to transmit proxy materials to beneficial owners of securities. Nonetheless, the Exchange proposes two revisions to make the rule identical to the corresponding amended EDGA and EDGX Rules 13.3(a). These revisions to paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3 are: (i) Pluralize the reference to “proxy material” in the first sentence; and (ii) specify that the “designated investment advisor” is defined in Interpretation and Policy .01 to this Rule 13.3. Otherwise, the Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 3.22. As amended, Exchange Rule 13.3 would be identical to amended EDGA and EDGX Rules 13.3. The Exchange believes that the changes described above will help avoid confusion amongst Members of the Exchange that are also members of EDGA, BZX, and EDGX by adopting identical rules across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges with regard to proxy delivery.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, allowing the Exchange to implement identical rules across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among Exchange, EDGX, BZX, and EDGA rules of similar purpose. The proposed rule change should, therefore, result in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance as well as a better understanding of Exchange Rules for common members of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend its program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option contract until January 5, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The purpose of this filing is to extend the Pilot Program
An “accommodation” or “cabinet” trade refers to trades in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with the Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 6.80, Accommodation Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for engaging in cabinet trades. Rule 6.80 currently provides for cabinet transactions to occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of a $1 per option contract in any options series open for trading in the Exchange, except that the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1 per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a Floor Broker or by a Market Maker or provided in response to a request by a Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but must yield priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those orders held by the Trading Official, and which resting cabinet orders may be closing only). Provided that both the buyer and the seller yield to orders resting in the cabinet book, opening cabinet bids can trade with opening cabinet offers at $1 per option contract.
The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through January 5, 2016 to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract. These lower-priced transactions are permitted to be traded pursuant to the same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids and offers for opening transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions in order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.
As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80, transactions that occur for less than $1 will not be disseminated to the public on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80, the transactions will be exempt from the Consolidated Options Audit Trail (“COATS”) requirements of Exchange Rule 6.67 Order Format and System Entry Requirements. However, the Exchange will maintain quotation, order and transaction information for the transactions in the same format as the COATS data is maintained. In this regard, all transactions for less than $1 must be reported to the Exchange following the close of each business day.
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 29, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA has proposed to merge FINRA Dispute Resolution into FINRA Regulation. To implement the merger, FINRA proposes to make conforming amendments to the Delegation Plan, amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to incorporate substantive and unique provisions from the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws and to make other conforming amendments, delete the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws in their entirety, and make conforming amendments to FINRA rules.
FINRA proposed to delete Section III of the Delegation Plan, which delegates responsibilities and functions to FINRA Dispute Resolution, and to amend Section II of the Delegation Plan, which delegates responsibilities and functions to FINRA Regulation, to incorporate several of the provisions from Section III that apply to dispute resolution. Specifically, FINRA proposed to amend Section II of the Delegation Plan to provide FINRA Regulation with the authority to establish and interpret rules and regulations regarding dispute resolution programs; develop and adopt appropriate and necessary rule changes relating to the dispute resolution forum; conduct arbitrations, mediations, and other dispute resolution programs; establish and assess fees and other charges on FINRA members, persons associated with members, and others using the dispute resolution forum; and manage external relations on dispute resolution. In addition, FINRA proposed to incorporate in its entirety current Section III(C)(1) of the Delegation Plan, which governs the National Arbitration and Mediation Committee (“NAMC”), into Section II(C) of the Delegation Plan.
In addition, FINRA proposed to make other technical and conforming changes throughout the Delegation Plan.
FINRA proposed to amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to incorporate substantive and unique provisions from the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws and, consequently, to delete the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws in their entirety. FINRA has represented that where differences exist in the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws that would not be incorporated into the FINRA Regulation By-Laws under the proposed rule change, the differences are non-substantive or would not otherwise affect the governance or operation of the dispute resolution program.
In addition, FINRA is proposing to amend Section 4.2 of the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to increase the total number of directors who could serve on the FINRA Regulation board from 15 to 17. FINRA states that members of the FINRA Board's Regulatory Policy Committee currently serve as the directors of the board of FINRA Regulation.
FINRA proposed to make other conforming and technical amendments to the FINRA Regulation By-Laws.
FINRA proposed to amend several FINRA rules in connection with the proposed merger of FINRA Dispute Resolution into FINRA Regulation to, among other things, delete references to FINRA Dispute Resolution; add a definition of “FINRA Regulation;” change references to “subsidiaries” or “subsidiary” to “FINRA Regulation;” remove references to Section III of the Delegation Plan, which pertains to FINRA Dispute Resolution, and change the language to reference FINRA Regulation; and replace references to “Dispute Resolution” with “Regulation.”
In addition, in connection with the merger, FINRA proposed to rename FINRA Dispute Resolution as the Office of Dispute Resolution. As discussed above, the Office of Dispute Resolution would become a separate department within FINRA Regulation that would continue to administer FINRA's existing dispute resolution programs. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would add a definition of “Office of Dispute Resolution” to FINRA's rules and amend various FINRA rules to replace certain references to “Dispute Resolution” with “Office of Dispute Resolution.”
Upon completion of the merger, the position of President of FINRA Dispute Resolution would no longer exist, therefore FINRA proposed to delete references to the President of FINRA Dispute Resolution from its Rules.
The Commission received four comment letters opposing the proposed rule change
In addition, two commenters believe FINRA's justifications for the proposed merger are conclusory
In response, FINRA notes that it “does not need to maintain separate corporate entities in order to provide a fair, neutral and efficient dispute resolution forum.”
In addition, FINRA states that it retained and incorporated into FINRA Regulation's operations, the unique elements of the dispute resolution program that “strengthen its operations and enhance the fairness and neutrality of the forum.”
Moreover, FINRA states that the merger would not have a practical effect on corporate governance of the dispute resolution forum as members of the FINRA Board's Regulatory Policy Committee, who currently serve as the directors of the boards of both FINRA Regulation and FINRA Dispute Resolution,
FINRA states that following the merger, FINRA's dispute resolution program will continue to function as a separate department within FINRA Regulation, and will be overseen by the Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution, who will be responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the dispute resolution program.
FINRA also states that it “does not believe that the merger would impact public perception of fairness of the forum” because FINRA, FINRA Regulation and FINRA Dispute Resolution appear to the public to be a single organization and, furthermore, the merger will not affect the services and benefits provided by, or the costs to use, the dispute resolution forum, or its corporate governance or oversight.
PIABA states that there may be unintended consequences of merging FINRA Dispute Resolution into FINRA Regulation, specifically questioning whether a decision by FINRA Enforcement to decline to take action against a member for conduct that is the subject of a pending arbitration could be used as defensive evidence in an arbitration proceeding.
One commenter states that FINRA did not provide a cost-benefit analysis or quantify the administrative savings that will result from the merger or state what it will do with these savings.
Two commenters believe that the comment period for the proposed rule change was too short to allow interested parties to fully evaluate the proposal and provide comments.
After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment letters, and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities association.
The Commission recognizes that commenters raised concerns that in approving the current proposal, the Commission would be contradicting its prior findings when it approved the creation of Dispute Resolution as a separate subsidiary.
With respect to concerns raised by commenters regarding the public perception of fairness if the merger is approved, the Commission notes that the dispute resolution forum will continue to be subject to the same Commission oversight as other departments of FINRA, which includes the requirement to file all rule changes, which include changes to the By-Laws, with the Commission,
PIABA also questioned the actual cost savings generated by the proposed merger. FINRA indicated that the merger will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens that result from the need to maintain separate legal entities, such as costs and resources associated with complying with multiple-entity regulatory and tax filings and maintaining separate accounting protocols. The merger will allow FINRA to streamline its operational procedures and re-allocate staff involved in such processes, which should make FINRA's operations more efficient.
FINRA states that the increase to the maximum number of FINRA Regulation board seats from 15 to 17 will provide it with additional flexibility to manage its board committee assignments and meet the compositional requirements under the FINRA Regulation By-Laws. The Commission notes that following the increase, the FINRA Regulation board compositional requirements will continue to provide for the fair representation of FINRA's members and the numerical dominance of public directors, consistent with the requirements of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3, Forwarding or Proxy and other Issuer Materials; Proxy Voting, to conform to the rules of EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA (together with BZX, BYX and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
EDGA and EDGX recently filed proposed rule changes with the Commission to restructure and amend their Rules 3.22. Proxy Voting, and 13.3, Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer Materials, to conform to BYX and BZX Rule 13.3.
In sum, paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3 requires Members to transmit proxy materials and other communications to beneficial owners of securities. The Exchange notes paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3 is substantially similar to EDGA and EDGX Rules 13.3(a) which also requires Members to transmit proxy materials to beneficial owners of securities. Nonetheless, the Exchange proposes two revisions to make the rule identical to the corresponding amended EDGA and EDGX Rules 13.3(a). These revisions to paragraph (a) of Rule 13.3 are: (i) Pluralize the reference to “proxy material” in the first sentence; and (ii) specify that the “designated investment advisor” is defined in Interpretation and Policy .01 to this Rule 13.3. Otherwise, the Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 3.22. As amended, Exchange Rule 13.3 would be identical to amended EDGA and EDGX Rules 13.3. The Exchange believes that the changes described above will help avoid confusion amongst Members of the Exchange that are also members of EDGA, BYX, and EDGX by adopting identical rules across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges with regard to proxy delivery.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, allowing the Exchange to implement identical rules across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among Exchange, EDGX, BYX, and EDGA rules of similar purpose. The proposed rule change should, therefore, result in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance as well as a better understanding of Exchange Rules for common members of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application and a temporary order under Section 22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
Applicants request a temporary order to permit Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Third Avenue Trust (the “Trust”), to suspend the right of redemption of its outstanding redeemable securities.
The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and Third Avenue Management LLC (the “Adviser,” together with the Trust, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on December 16, 2015.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 7, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Third Avenue Management LLC 622 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10017.
David Joire, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6866 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Adviser is the investment adviser to the Fund. The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser managed assets of approximately $8 billion as of September 30, 2015.
2. The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and is registered with the Commission under the 1940 Act as an open-end management investment company with five series. Each series of the Trust has a different investment objective and different investment policies. The Fund is one such series.
3. The Fund is a non-diversified open-end investment company. Its investment objective is to seek long-term total return, which may include investment returns from a combination of sources including capital appreciation, fees and interest income.
4. The Fund has been subject to a significant level of redemption requests by the Fund's investors over the past six months. For example, the Fund has experienced a total of $1.1 billion in estimated net outflows for the year to date through December 9, 2015, which was more than 145% of its remaining net asset value at that date. In November 2015, the Fund experienced a total of $317 million in estimated net redemptions, and the Fund's Institutional Class net asset value per share fell from $7.81 to $7.08 and its Retail Class net asset value per share fell from $7.82 to $7.09.
5. The ongoing reduction in liquidity in the Fund's portfolio securities is related to a number of factors, including an imbalance between selling interest and buying interest. The Fund increased its cash position to over $200 million by early December 2015 in anticipation of tax selling and other redemptions.
6. During this period, Fund management also kept the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) informed and reevaluated contingency plans. On December 9, 2015, after considering the environment the Fund was in and the likelihood that incremental sales of portfolio securities to satisfy additional redemptions would have to be made at prices that would unfairly disadvantage all remaining shareholders, the Board determined that the fairest action on behalf of all shareholders would be to adopt a plan of liquidation. The Board determined to implement this plan by placing the remaining noncash assets in a liquidating trust for the benefit of all Fund shareholders and distributing available cash. Relief from the Commission in connection with the plan's implementation was not sought by the Fund and the Adviser.
7. On December 9, 2015, the Board adopted a plan of liquidation for the Fund (the “Plan of Liquidation”), pursuant to which the Board declared two distributions, one of the remaining net cash and one of the beneficial interests in a liquidating trust (“Liquidating Trust”). These distributions were scheduled to be paid on December 16, 2015. Interests in the Liquidating Trust would not trade and would, in general, be transferable only by operation of law. The Adviser would manage the Liquidating Trust's assets without charge and there would be periodic distributions from the Liquidating Trust as income is received and assets are sold at fair prices. All redemption requests as of December 9, 2015, were met by the Fund and the sales of the shares of the Fund were suspended as of December 10, 2015.
8. Upon announcement of the Plan of Liquidation, the Commission staff expressed concerns during discussions with the Fund and the Adviser. In
9. Applicants state that approximately 65% of the value of the Fund's shares is held by shareholders in the Fund's Institutional Class, and the rest is held by investors in its Retail Class. If the relief is not granted, and the Fund is unable to suspend redemptions, the institutional investors would likely be best positioned to take advantage of any redemption opportunity, to the detriment of those investors—most likely, retail investors—who remain in the Fund. These remaining investors would suffer a rapidly declining net asset value and an even further diminished liquidity of the Fund's securities portfolio. The relief would help avoid such an outcome.
10. Applicants also state that the Fund will not be engaged and does not propose to engage, in any business activities other than those necessary for the winding-up of its affairs. Applicants further state that relief permitting the Fund to suspend redemptions in connection with its liquidation would permit the Fund to liquidate its assets in an orderly manner and prevent the Fund from being forced to sell assets at unreasonably low prices to meet redemptions.
1. Section 22(e)(1) of the Act provides that a registered investment company may not suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security in accordance with its terms for more than seven days after the tender of such security to the company or its designated agent except for any period during which the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is closed other than customary week-end and holiday closings, or during which trading on the NYSE is restricted.
2. Section 22(e)(3) of the Act provides that redemptions may be suspended by a registered investment company for such other periods as the Commission may by order permit for the protection of security holders of the registered investment company.
3. Applicants submit that granting the requested relief would be for the protection of the shareholders of the Fund, as provided in Section 22(e)(3) of the Act. Applicants assert that, in requesting an order by the Commission, the Board's goal is to ensure that the Fund's shareholders will be treated appropriately in view of the otherwise detrimental effect on the Fund of the ongoing reduction in the liquidity of the Fund's portfolio securities, the very recent extreme difficulty the Fund has encountered in selling portfolio securities at prices the Adviser deemed to be fair and the ongoing redemptions that the Fund expected. Applicants further state that the requested relief is intended to permit an orderly liquidation of the portfolio securities at what Applicants consider to be fair values and ensure that all of the shareholders of the Fund are protected in the process by allowing the realization of fair value for these investments.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Pending liquidating distributions, the Fund will invest proceeds of cash dispositions of portfolio securities solely in U.S. government securities, cash equivalents, securities eligible for purchase by a registered money market fund with legal maturities not in excess of 90 days and, if determined to be necessary to protect the value of a portfolio position in a rights offering or other dilutive transaction, additional securities of the affected issuer.
(2) The Fund will make liquidating cash distributions pro rata at least quarterly in an amount not less than all cash proceeds from dispositions of portfolio securities during such quarter not required to provide for liabilities, reserves, and for so long as the Board determines that maintaining regulated investment company status under subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is important for the protection of shareholders, the maintenance of diversification required for such tax status.
(3) The Fund and the Adviser will make and keep true, accurate and current all appropriate records, including but not limited to those surrounding the events leading to the requested relief, the plan for the orderly liquidation of Fund assets, the sale of Fund portfolio securities, the distribution of Fund assets, and communications with shareholders (including any complaints from shareholders and responses thereto).
(4) The Fund and the Adviser will promptly make available to staff of the Commission all files, books, records and personnel as requested, relating to the Fund and the Liquidating Trust.
(5) The Fund and the Adviser will provide periodic reporting to Commission staff regarding the status of the liquidation and distributions.
(6) Neither the Adviser nor any of its affiliates will receive any fee for managing the Fund.
(7) The Fund is in liquidation and will not be engaged and does not propose to engage in any business activities other than those necessary for the protection of its assets, the protection of shareholders and the winding-up of its affairs.
(8) The Adviser will appropriately convey accurate and timely information to shareholders of the Fund with regard to the status of the Fund and its liquidation on the Adviser's Web site, including without limitation information concerning the dates and amounts of distributions, press releases, and periodic reports, and will maintain a toll-free number to respond to shareholder inquiries.
(9) The Fund and the Adviser shall consult with Commission staff prior to making any material amendments to the Plan of Liquidation.
(10) The Fund will comply with the requirements of Section 30 of the Act and the rules thereunder and will file a report containing a liquidation audit,
(11) The Fund and the Adviser will comply with all provisions of the Federal securities laws.
(12) The relief granted pursuant to the application shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or legal proceedings involving or against the Applicants.
Based on the representations and conditions in the application, the Commission permits the temporary suspension of the right of redemption for the protection of the Fund's security holders. Under the circumstances described in the application, which require immediate action to protect the Fund's security holders, the Commission concludes that it is not practicable to give notice or an opportunity to request a hearing before issuing the order.
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 22(e)(3) of the Act, that the requested relief from Section 22(e) of the Act is granted with respect to the Fund until it has liquidated, or until the Commission rescinds the order granted herein. This order shall be in effect as of December 16, 2015, with suspension of redemption requests as requested by the Applicants to be effective as of December 10, 2015.
By the Commission.
On October 16, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change, so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rules at Chapter VII, Section 12, entitled “Order Exposure Requirements,” to make clear that BX PRISM is an exception to this rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rules at Chapter VII, Section 12, entitled “Order Exposure Requirements” to specifically state that orders entered into BX PRISM are not subject to the rule at Section 12. Recently, the Exchange's BX PRISM rule was approved by the Commission.
The Exchange is also proposing certain minor technical amendments to the rule to remove the word “Commentary” and re-letter the remainder of the rule. The Exchange is also deleting a reserved section. The Exchange believes amending Chapter VII, Section 12 will highlight this exception concerning BX PRISM and also conform BX Rules for internal consistency.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange's proposal will make clear that BX PRISM is an exception to the general rule, which requires BX Participants to expose principal orders they represent as agent for at least one (1) second prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against such bid or offer. BX PRISM permits Participants to enter paired orders without first exposing those orders for one second. The Exchange believes that providing an exception to the order exposure rule for orders entered into BX PRISM is consistent with the Act, because BX PRISM's auction has an auction period which is no less than one hundred milliseconds and no more than one second. Only one Auction may be conducted at a time in any given series. Once commenced, an Auction may not be cancelled. To initiate the Auction, the Initiating Participant entering the order into BX PRISM must mark the PRISM Order for Auction processing, and specify either: (a) A single price at which it seeks to execute the PRISM Order (a “stop price”); (b) that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as agent on behalf of an Initiating Order the price and size of all PRISM Auction Notifications (“PAN”) responses, and trading interest (“auto-match”) in which case the PRISM Order will be stopped at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side; or (c) that it is willing to either: (i) Stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match PAN responses and trading interest at a price or prices that improve the stop price to a specified price (a “No Worse Than” or “NWT” price); (ii) stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or (iii) stop the entire order at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side, and auto-match PAN responses and trading interest at a price or prices that improve the stop price up to the NWT price.
The proposed amendment will amend the current order exposure rule to except orders entered into BX PRISM from the rule. The Exchange believes that this amendment will protect investors and the public interest by providing additional information in the Rules concerning exceptions.
BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose any burden on competition, rather, the amendment provides an exception to the order exposure rule for orders entered into BX PRISM for all Participants. The Exchange believes that this exception will further inform BX Participants of their obligations with respect to order exposure. Initiating Participants entering orders into BX PRISM are subject to market risk while their PRISM Order is exposed to other BX Participants in this competitive auction.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; does not impose any significant burden on competition; and by its terms does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; for the protection of investors; or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program in Rule 1059, Accommodation Transactions, to allow cabinet trading to take place below $1 per option contract under specified circumstances (the “pilot program”).
The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new language is
(a)-(b) No change.
• • •
.01 No change.
.02 Limit Orders Priced Below $1: Limit orders with a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract may trade under the terms and conditions in Rule 1059 above in each series of option contracts open for trading on the Exchange, except that:
(a)-(c) No change.
(d) Unless otherwise extended, the effectiveness of the Commentary .02 terminates January 5, [2016]
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program in Commentary .02 of Exchange Rule 1059, Accommodation Transactions, which sets forth specific procedures for engaging in cabinet trades, to allow the Commission adequate time to consider permanently allowing transactions to take place on the Exchange in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract.
On December 30, 2010, the Exchange filed an immediately effective proposal
The Exchange believes that allowing a price of at least $0 but less than $1 will continue to better accommodate the closing of options positions in series that are worthless or not actively traded, particularly due to recent market conditions which have resulted in a significant number of series being out-of-the-money. For example, a market participant might have a long position in a call series with a strike price of $100 and the underlying stock might now be trading at $30. In such an instance, there might not otherwise be a market for that person to close-out its position even at the $1 cabinet price (
The Exchange hereby seeks to extend the pilot period for such $1 cabinet trading until January 5, 2017. The Exchange seeks this extension to allow the procedures to continue without interruption.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposal does not raise any issues of intra-market competition because it applies to all options participants in the same manner.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 16, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change, so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-25 requires registered broker-dealers to electronically submit securities transaction information, including identifiers for prime brokerage
The Commission estimates that it sends approximately 7,697 electronic blue sheet requests per year to clearing broker-dealers that in turn submit an average 124,912 responses.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend its program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option contract until January 5, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to extend the Pilot Program
An “accommodation” or “cabinet” trade refers to trades in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless and typically not actively traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with the Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 968NY Accommodation Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for engaging in cabinet trades. Rule 968NY currently provides for cabinet transactions to occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of a $1 per option contract in any options series open for trading in the Exchange, except that the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1 per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a Floor Broker or by a Market Maker or provided in response to a request by a Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but must yield priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those orders held by the Trading Official, and which resting cabinet orders may be closing only).
The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through January 5, 2016 to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract. These lower-priced transactions are permitted to be traded pursuant to the same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids and offers for opening transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions in order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.
As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 968NY, transactions that occur for less than $1 will not be disseminated to the public on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 968NY the transactions will be exempt from the Consolidated Options Audit Trail (“COATS”) requirements of Exchange Rule 955NY Order Format and System Entry Requirements. However, the Exchange will maintain quotation, order and transaction information for the transactions in the same format as the COATS data is maintained. In this regard, all transactions for less than $1 must be reported to the Exchange following the close of each business day.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is to extend an established pilot program for one additional year and continue to facilitate ATP Holders ability to close positions in worthless or not actively traded series.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day Notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before January 21, 2016.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The Small Business Act, as amended by the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) Reauthorization Act of 2011, requires SBA to collect regarding the SBIR and STTR awards made by the federal agencies that participate in those programs. SBA is required to maintain this information in searchable electronic databases and also to report the information to Congress annually.
60 Day Notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before February 22, 2016.
Send all comments to, Jodie Fenner, Administrative Support Assistant, Office of the Ombudsman, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Jodie Fenner, Administrative Support Assistant,
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 657(b)(2)(B), requires the SBA National Ombudsman to establish a means for SBA to receive comments on regulatory and compliance actions from small entities regarding their disagreements with a Federal Agency action. The Ombudsman uses it to obtain the agency's response, encourage a fresh look by the agency at a high level, and build a more small business-friendly regulatory environment.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before February 22, 2016.
Send all comments to Cristina Flores, Associate Director of Public Engagement and Operations, Office of National Women's Business Council, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Cristina Flores, Associate Director of Public Engagement and Operations, Office of National Women's Business Council,
The objective of this study is to identify preliminary criteria for segmentation of the market of women entrepreneurs using initial criteria to define groups of entrepreneurs, probe issues of entrepreneurship risk, motivations, and expectations to inform the messaging about entrepreneurship to different segments. This request addresses the recruitment and data collection from women business owners who meet these criteria during 12 focus groups held once in three regions of the country.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before February 22, 2016.
Send all comments to Cristina Flores, Associate Director of Public Engagement and Operations, Office of National Women's Business Council, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Cristina Flores, Associate Director of Public Engagement and Operations, Office of National Women's Business Council,
The National Women Business Council (NWBC) is conducting research in order to explore expectation, approaches, barriers and support and growth potential of young women entrepreneurs. Collection of date and analysis and assist in identifying ways in which programs may be designed to help grow as entrepreneurs. Identification and examination of potential differences between young women and older women, as well as women and men entrepreneur will be described and compared as well.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State determined on September 22, 2015 to maintain a Presidential Permit for the Vantage Pipeline border facilities following a change in ownership. On October 20, 2014, Vantage Pipeline US LP (Vantage), which owns the Vantage ethane pipeline running from North Dakota into Canada, notified the Department of State that Vantage was being acquired by Pembina Prairie Pipeline (U.S.A.) Ltd. (Pembina U.S.A.), which is owned by Pembina Pipeline Corporation (PPC). The July 16, 2013 Presidential Permit for the Vantage Pipeline border facilities requires the permittee to notify the Department of any change in ownership or control. The Department of State determined that maintaining this permit would serve the national interest. In making this determination, the Department of State followed the procedures established under Executive Order 13337, and
Office of Europe, Western Hemisphere and Africa, Bureau of Energy Resources, U.S. Department of State, (ENR/EDP/EWA), 2201 C St. NW., Ste. 4843, Washington, DC 20520. Attn: Deputy Director. Tel: 202-647-2041.
Additional information concerning the Vantage pipeline facilities can be found at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability of the FONSI.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321
Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Room 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
The FAA participated as a cooperating agency with the USAF in the preparation of the EA, which evaluated the potential environmental impacts of SpaceX conducting vertical landings of a Falcon launch vehicle first stage at LC-1 at CCAFS, as well as related construction. Landings could include a Falcon 9 first stage or a single core of a Falcon Heavy first stage. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration also participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
As the Proposed Action would require Federal actions (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.18) involving the USAF and the FAA, the EA was prepared to satisfy the NEPA obligations of both agencies. The USAF issued a FONSI on January 8, 2015, which stated that the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and therefore the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required. The FAA has formally adopted the EA and also issued a FONSI to support the issuance of new launch licenses or modify existing launch licenses to allow SpaceX to conduct Falcon landings at LC-1.
The Proposed Action analyzed in the EA consists of SpaceX conducting Falcon landings at LC-1 and construction activities, including land clearing, construction of landing pads, and supporting infrastructure modifications at LC-1. SpaceX anticipates no more than 12 landings per year (one per month). Operations at LC-1 would also include post-flight landing and safing activities. The FAA's Proposed Action is to issue new launch licenses or modify existing launch licenses to allow SpaceX to conduct vertical landings of a Falcon launch vehicle first stage at CCAFS. Alternatives analyzed as part of the FONSI include the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue or modify launch licenses to allow SpaceX to conduct Falcon landings at CCAFS. The Falcon first stage would continue to land in the Atlantic Ocean.
Based on its independent review and consideration, the FAA issued a FONSI concurring with the analysis of impacts and findings in the EA and formally adopting the EA to support issuing new launch licenses or modifying existing launch licenses to allow SpaceX to conduct vertical landings of a Falcon launch vehicle first stage at CCAFS. After reviewing and analyzing available data and information on existing conditions, potential impacts, and measures to mitigate those impacts, the FAA has determined that issuing or modifying launch licenses to allow SpaceX to conduct vertical landings of a Falcon launch vehicle first stage at CCAFS is a Federal action that would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an EIS is not required, and the FAA has issued a FONSI. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable environmental laws and FAA regulations.
The FAA has posted the EA and FONSI on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 23, 2016 from 12:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesday, February 24, 2016 from 8:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at CGH Technologies, Inc., 600 Maryland
Ms. Heather Hemdal, ATPAC Executive Director, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Tuesday, February 23, 2016 from 12:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesday, February 24, 2016 from 8:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting will cover a continuation of the ATPAC's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures. It will also include:
1. Call for Safety Items
2. Approval of minutes of the previous meeting
3. Introduction of New Areas of Concern or Miscellaneous items
4. Items of Interest
5. Status updates to existing Areas of Concern
6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent meetings.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend and persons desiring to present oral statements should notify Ms. Heather Hemdal no later than February 16, 2016. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the ATPAC at any time at the address given above.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Partial revocation of exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board revokes the class exemption as it pertains to the overhead trackage rights described in Docket No. FD 35974
This decision is effective on January 21, 2016. Petitions to stay must be filed by January 4, 2016. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by January 11, 2016.
Send an original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35974 (Sub-No. 1) to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Jeremy M. Berman, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
Jessica Caine (202) 245-0392. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner Miller.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announces a webinar meeting of its National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC) to develop comments on the draft National Freight Strategic Plan (Plan.) This meeting is open to the public and there will be an opportunity for public comment.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 7, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
The meeting will take place online, as a webinar.
John Drake, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at (202) 366-1999 or
On October 18, 2015, the DOT issued the draft National Freight Strategic Plan for public comment, available at
(1) Welcome and opening remarks;
(2) Update on FAST Act Freight provisions;
(3) Discussion on the draft National Freight Strategic Plan
(4) Public comment.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 6252, Installment Sale Income.
Written comments should be received on or before February 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael A. Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions.
Written comments should be received on or before February 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael A. Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 990-W, Estimated Tax on Unrelated Business Taxable Income for Tax-Exempt Organizations.
Written comments should be received on or before February 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael A. Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2016 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service Commemorative Coin Program as follows:
Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid posted at
Ann Bailey, Products Manager for Numismatic and Bullion; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
31 U.S.C. §§ 5111, 5112 & 9701.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2016 Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Program as follows:
Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid posted at
Ann Bailey, Products Manager for Numismatic and Bullion; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is updating the monetary allowance payable for qualifying interments that occur during calendar year 2016, which applies toward the private purchase of an outer burial receptacle (or “grave liner”) for use in a VA national cemetery. The allowance is equal to the average cost of Government-furnished grave liners less any administrative costs to VA. The purpose of this Notice is to notify interested parties of the average cost of Government-furnished grave liners, administrative costs that relate to processing and paying the allowance, and the amount of the allowance payable for qualifying interments that occur during calendar year 2016.
Tamula Jones, Budget Operations and Field Support Division, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Telephone: 202-461-6688 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 2306(e)(3) and (4) of title 38, United States Code authorizes VA to provide a monetary allowance for the private purchase of an outer burial receptacle for use in a VA national cemetery where its use is authorized. The allowance for qualified interments that occur during calendar year 2016 is the average cost of Government-furnished grave liners in fiscal year 2015, less the administrative costs incurred by VA in calendar year 2015 in processing and paying the allowance in lieu of the Government-furnished grave liner.
The average cost of Government-furnished grave liners is determined by taking VA's total cost during a fiscal year for single-depth grave liners that were procured for placement at the time of interment and dividing it by the total number of such grave liners procured by VA during that fiscal year. The calculation excludes both grave liners procured and pre-placed in gravesites as part of cemetery gravesite development projects and all double-depth grave liners. Using this method of computation, the average cost was determined to be $331.00 for fiscal year 2015.
The administrative costs incurred by VA consist of those costs that relate to processing and paying an allowance in lieu of providing the Government-furnished grave liner. These costs have been determined to be $9.00 for calendar year 2016 allowances.
The allowance payable for qualifying interments occurring during calendar year 2016, therefore, is $322.00.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |