| Page Range | 80207-80633 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 80615 - To Take Certain Actions Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and for Other Purposes | |
| 80 FR 80403 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 80424 - Bravo Resource Partners, Ltd., First Potash Corp., HIP Energy Corporation, Musgrove Minerals Corp., and Starcore International Ventures Ltd. (a/k/a Starcore International Mines Ltd.); Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 80440 - Bioject Medical Technologies, Inc., Black Castle Developments Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a ingXabo Corporation), Catalyst Resource Group, Inc., SSI International, Ltd., Strike Axe, Inc., and Viper Powersports, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 80383 - Notice of Intention To Relinquish Lands Withdrawn for Military Purposes; California | |
| 80 FR 80382 - Public Land Order No. 7846; Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range; California | |
| 80 FR 80382 - Notice of Temporary Closure on Public Lands in Riverside County, CA | |
| 80 FR 80363 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 80 FR 80386 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 80329 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80360 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80357 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80400 - Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the MacArthur Maze Fire Scenario | |
| 80 FR 80402 - Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Newhall Pass Fire Scenario | |
| 80 FR 80398 - Bell Bend, LLC; Combined License Application for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant | |
| 80 FR 80359 - Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides-Health Criteria | |
| 80 FR 80359 - Notice of Availability of Electronic Reporting; Federal Air Rules for Reservations Online Reporting System | |
| 80 FR 80339 - Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities-Captioned and Described Educational Media | |
| 80 FR 80381 - Amendment to the Notice of Availability of the Osage County Oil and Gas Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Osage Nation Oil and Gas Resources, Osage County, Oklahoma | |
| 80 FR 80442 - Re-Delegation of Immunity From Judicial Seizure Authorities | |
| 80 FR 80331 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 80258 - Regulations Governing United States Savings Bonds | |
| 80 FR 80457 - Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit | |
| 80 FR 80442 - Re-Delegation of Authority Section 102 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, As Amended | |
| 80 FR 80461 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: National Fire & Marine Insurance Company Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company | |
| 80 FR 80320 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 80 FR 80257 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards: Conforming Amendments; Correction | |
| 80 FR 80325 - Extension of the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program | |
| 80 FR 80380 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Holders or Containers Which Enter the United States Duty Free | |
| 80 FR 80266 - International Trademark Classification Changes | |
| 80 FR 80441 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 80441 - Notice of Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 80 FR 80441 - Interest Rates | |
| 80 FR 80228 - 2013 Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Rule Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z); Correction | |
| 80 FR 80319 - Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 80 FR 80361 - Deletion of Agenda Items From December 17, 2015 Open Meeting | |
| 80 FR 80442 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Lake Murray State Park Airport at Ardmore, Oklahoma | |
| 80 FR 80330 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Upper Llagas Creek Project Flood Protection Project in Santa Clara County, California | |
| 80 FR 80312 - Domestic Sugar Program: Overall Allotment Quantity and Marketing Allotments | |
| 80 FR 80451 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 80449 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 80450 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 80453 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 80452 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 80207 - Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Late Payment and Interest Charges on Past Due Assessments | |
| 80 FR 80265 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Arthur Kill, Staten Island, New York | |
| 80 FR 80266 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MA | |
| 80 FR 80310 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 28 | |
| 80 FR 80290 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 80316 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80315 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80347 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology | |
| 80 FR 80348 - Preferred Alternative for Certain Quantities of Plutonium Evaluated in the Final Surplus Plutonium Disposition Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 80 FR 80394 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 80363 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 80363 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 80347 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program General Forbearance Request | |
| 80 FR 80394 - Notice of Proposed Revisions to the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients for Fiscal Years Ending 12/31/15 and Thereafter | |
| 80 FR 80324 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 80323 - 2016 Annual Determination To Implement the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement | |
| 80 FR 80378 - Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) | |
| 80 FR 80385 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0120 | |
| 80 FR 80442 - Meeting of the Regional Energy Resource Council | |
| 80 FR 80384 - Proposed Information Collection: National Park Service Centennial National Household Survey | |
| 80 FR 80357 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 80327 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Revision, Comment Request: Final Rule for Records of Commodity Interest and Related Cash or Forward Transactions | |
| 80 FR 80247 - Records of Commodity Interest and Related Cash or Forward Transactions | |
| 80 FR 80376 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80395 - Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures as Low as is Reasonably Achievable | |
| 80 FR 80396 - Guidance on Making Changes to Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors | |
| 80 FR 80380 - Notice of Availability for Best Practices for Protecting Privacy, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Programs | |
| 80 FR 80321 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Research Activities in Central California, 2015-2016 | |
| 80 FR 80390 - Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Through FY 2017 Stand Down Grant Requests | |
| 80 FR 80349 - Swan Lake North Hydro LLCProject No. 13318-003; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
| 80 FR 80351 - Notice of Commission Half-Day Closing | |
| 80 FR 80354 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Broad Run Expansion Project | |
| 80 FR 80354 - Florida Southeast Connection, LLC; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Southeast Market Pipelines Project | |
| 80 FR 80350 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 80351 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 80353 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation and Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 80386 - Melamine From China and Trinidad and Tobago | |
| 80 FR 80376 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 80375 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 80423 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80416 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Trading Halts | |
| 80 FR 80414 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy | |
| 80 FR 80408 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees and Rebates Related to BX Price Improvement Auction (PRISM) | |
| 80 FR 80432 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Fees and Rebates and Tiers Related to BX Options | |
| 80 FR 80425 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories and To Establish the Series 57 Examination as the Appropriate Qualification Examination for Securities Traders | |
| 80 FR 80430 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1.1(s) To Provide for Price Collar Thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions | |
| 80 FR 80420 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to ALLB Routing and Other Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 80428 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to ALLB Routing and Other Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 80403 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Sections (e) Through (h) of Exchange Rule 1020, Registration and Functions of Options Specialists | |
| 80 FR 80422 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Adoption of a Charter of a New Committee of The Options Clearing Corporation's Board of Directors, the Technology Committee | |
| 80 FR 80387 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Form ETA-9142A, H-2A Application for Temporary Employment Certification, and Appendix A (OMB Control Number 1205-0466), Revision | |
| 80 FR 80462 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13667 and 13712 | |
| 80 FR 80308 - Notice of Availability of Regulatory Impact Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Regarding the Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions | |
| 80 FR 80389 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Placement Verification and Follow Up of Job Corps Participants | |
| 80 FR 80458 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Draft Bulletin: Risk Management Guidance for Higher Loan-to-Value Lending in Communities Targeted for Revitalization | |
| 80 FR 80383 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 80 FR 80317 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80362 - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture | |
| 80 FR 80381 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
| 80 FR 80366 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
| 80 FR 80386 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Alltech Associates, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 80387 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Almac Clinical Services Incorp (ACSI) | |
| 80 FR 80446 - Annual Random Controlled Substances Testing Percentage Rate for Calendar Year 2016 | |
| 80 FR 80443 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 80456 - Pipeline Safety: Random Drug Testing Rate; Contractor Management Information System Reporting; and Obtaining Drug and Alcohol Management Information System Sign-In Information | |
| 80 FR 80447 - Potential Benefits and Feasibility of Voluntary Compliance; Public Listening Sessions | |
| 80 FR 80462 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8844 | |
| 80 FR 80365 - Health Center Program | |
| 80 FR 80368 - Loan Repayment Program for Repayment of Health Professions Educational Loans; Announcement Type: Initial. | |
| 80 FR 80370 - Indian Health Professions Preparatory, Indian Health Professions Pre-Graduate and Indian Health Professions Scholarship Programs; Announcement Type: Initial | |
| 80 FR 80363 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80330 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 80455 - Deepwater Port License Application: Delfin LNG LLC, Delfin LNG Deepwater Port | |
| 80 FR 80454 - Deepwater Port License Application: Liberty Natural Gas LLC, Port Ambrose Deepwater Port; Withdrawal of Application and Termination of Federal Application Review Process | |
| 80 FR 80401 - Containment Shell or Liner Moisture Barrier Inspection | |
| 80 FR 80346 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Performance Report for the Gaining Early Awareness for Undergraduate Programs | |
| 80 FR 80388 - Agency Information Collection Activities, Comment Request; Solicitation of Nominations for the Iqbal Masih Award for the Elimination of Child Labor | |
| 80 FR 80275 - Spinetoram; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 80 FR 80269 - Propiconazole on Tea; Pesticide Tolerance | |
| 80 FR 80364 - Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 80362 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 80283 - Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries | |
| 80 FR 80307 - Apprenticeship Programs; Equal Employment Opportunity; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 80583 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions | |
| 80 FR 80209 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Ceiling Fan Light Kits | |
| 80 FR 80302 - Ownership Information in Market-Based Rate Filings | |
| 80 FR 80284 - Rules of Practice in Transportation: Investigative Hearings, Meetings, Reports, and Petitions for Reconsideration | |
| 80 FR 80232 - Technical Amendments: FHFA Address and Zip Code Change | |
| 80 FR 80301 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Danville, AR | |
| 80 FR 80355 - Commission Information Collection Activities; Consolidated Comment Request; Extension | |
| 80 FR 80299 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80293 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80465 - Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program | |
| 80 FR 80291 - Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80234 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80239 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80236 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80242 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 80295 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Rural Utilities Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order). The Order is administered by the Paper and Packaging Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the Order, assessments are collected from manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote paper and paper-based packaging. This rule implements the authority contained in the Order that allows the Board to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. Two additional changes are being made to reflect current practices and update the Order and regulations. This action contributes to effective administration of the program and was unanimously recommended by the Board.
Marlene Betts, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915; or electronic mail:
This rule is issued under the Order (7 CFR part 1222). The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have a retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This rule prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, assessments are collected from manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote paper and paper-based packaging. This rule implements authority contained in the Order and the 1996 Act that allows the Board to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. This action was unanimously recommended by the Board and will contribute to the effective administration of the program.
Section 1222.52(a) of the Order specifies that the Board's programs and expenses shall be paid by assessments on manufacturers and importers and other income or funds available to the Board. Paragraph (g) of that section specifies further that when a manufacturer or importer fails to pay the assessment within 60 calendar days of the date it is due, the Board may impose a late payment charge and interest. The late payment charge and rate of interest must be prescribed in regulations issued by the Secretary. All late assessments will be subject to the specified late payment charge and interest.
The Order became effective on January 23, 2014. Assessment collection began on March 1, 2014. Manufacturers and importers must pay their assessments owed to the Board by the 30th calendar day of the month following the end of the quarter in which the paper and paper-based packaging was manufactured or imported. For example, assessments for paper manufactured or imported during the months of January, February and March are due to the Board by April 30.
Entities that domestically manufacture or import to the United States less than 100,000 short tons of
Assessment funds are used for promotion activities that are intended to benefit all industry members. Entities who fail to pay their assessments on time could reap the benefits of Board programs at the expense of others. In addition, they could utilize funds for their own use that should otherwise be paid to the Board to finance Board programs. Thus, it is important that all assessed entities pay their assessments in a timely manner.
At a meeting held September 25, 2014, the Board unanimously recommended implementing the Order authority regarding late payment and interest charges. Specifically, the Board recommended that a late payment charge be imposed on any manufacturer or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which such manufacturer or importer is liable. The late payment charge will be imposed on any assessments not received within 60 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge will be equal to 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
The Board also recommended that an interest rate of 1
This action is expected to help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities. Accordingly, a new Subpart C is added to the Order for provisions implementing the paper and paper-based packaging Order, and a new § 1222.520 is added to Subpart C.
This rule also makes two additional changes to the Order. This rule will revise the term “Board” as defined in § 1222.2 from the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Board to the Paper and Packaging Board. This change will simplify the term and bring the Order in line with current industry use. Conforming changes will also be made to § 1222.40(a) and the heading immediately prior to this section where the term is also referenced. In addition, in § 1222.108, the OMB control number will be changed from 0581-NEW to 0581-0281, the control number assigned by the OMB.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (manufacturers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.0 million.
According to the Board, there are 69 manufacturers in the United States that produce the types of paper and paper-based packaging covered under the Order. Using an average price of $806 per short ton,
Based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) data, it is estimated that in 2014 there were 2,800 importers of paper and paper-based packaging. Ninety importers, or about 3 percent, imported more than $7.0 million worth of paper and paper-based packaging. Thus, the majority of importers would be considered small entities. However, all of the 20 entities that imported 100,000 short tons or more (the Order's exemption threshold) also imported more than $7.0 million worth of paper and paper-based packaging. Therefore, none of the 20 importers covered under the Order would be considered small businesses.
Based on domestic production of approximately 66.1 million short tons in 2014 and an average price of $806 per short ton, the domestic paper and paper-based packaging industry is valued at approximately $53.3 billion. According to Customs data, the value of paper and paper-based packaging imports in 2014 was about $5.9 billion.
This rule prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, assessments are collected from manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote paper and paper-based packaging. This rule will add a new § 1222.520 that will specify a late payment charge of 10 percent of the assessments due and interest at a rate of 1
Regarding the economic impact of this rule on affected entities, this action imposes no costs on manufacturers and importers who pay their assessments on time. It merely provides an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner. For all entities who are delinquent in paying assessments, both large and small, the charges will be applied the same. As for the impact on the industry as a whole, this action will help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Order provides for an exemption for entities that domestically manufacture or import less than 100,000 short tons annually. It is estimated that
The alternative to this action would be to maintain the status quo and not impose late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. However, the Board determined that implementing these charges will help facilitate program administration by encouraging entities to pay their assessments in a timely manner. The Board reviewed the late payment and interest charges applied by other research and promotion programs and concluded that a 10 percent late payment charge and interest at a rate of 1
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Order have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0281. This rule will not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and will impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping burden on manufacturers and importers of paper and paper-based packaging.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, the Board met on September 25, 2014, and unanimously made its recommendation. The Board's meetings, including meetings held via teleconference, are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Paper and paper-based packaging promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1222 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(a)
The control number assigned to the information collection requirement in this subpart by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is OMB control number 0581-0281 and 0505-0001.
(a) A late payment charge shall be imposed on any manufacturer or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which such manufacturer or importer is liable. The late payment shall be imposed on any assessments not received within 60 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge shall be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
(b) In addition to the late payment charge, 1
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
On October 31, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
The effective date of this rule is January 25, 2016. The final rule changes to appendix V will be mandatory for product testing starting June 21, 2016. The final rule test procedures specified by appendix V1 will be mandatory for product testing starting on the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards (ECS) for CFLKs. Any final rule establishing amended CFLK ECS will provide notice of the required compliance date and corresponding required use of appendix V1.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 25, 2016.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference into part 430 the following industry standards:
(1) IES LM-66-14 (“IES LM-66-14”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps, approved December 30, 2014.
(2) IES LM-79-08 (“IES LM-79-08”), IES Approved Method for Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products, approved December 31, 2007.
Interested persons can obtain copies of IES standards from the Illuminating Engineering Society, 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, NY 10005-4001, (212) 248-5000, or
Title III, Part B
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must follow in order to produce data that is
EPCA requires that test procedures for ceiling fan light kits be based on the “ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for CFLs” and the “ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures” in effect as of August 8, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(ii)) DOE published a final rule in December 2006 (December 2006 final rule) and established DOE's current test procedures for ceiling fan light kits under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix V. 71 FR 71340 (Dec. 8, 2006) EPCA also provides, however, that DOE “may review and revise” the ceiling fan light kit test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(B)). Accordingly, as discussed in section III.A, DOE is replacing the existing references to ENERGY STAR program requirements with direct references to the latest versions of the appropriate industry test methods.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures that DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must also determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the product's measured energy efficiency as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e))
EPCA requires DOE, at least once every 7 years, to evaluate all covered products and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a determination in the
For test procedures of covered products that do not fully account for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedures to account for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If integrated test procedures are technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode test procedures for the covered product, if technically feasible. Id.
In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the current test procedures and new test procedures that would support amendments to the CFLK energy conservation standards currently being considered by DOE. The October 2014 NOPR also proposed to replace references to ENERGY STAR performance requirements with tables that contain the specific performance requirements from the ENERGY STAR documents and proposed updated guidance related to accent lighting in CFLKs. DOE conducted a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the October 2014 NOPR on November 18, 2014.
EPCA, as amended, established separate energy conservation standards for three groups of CFLKs: (1) Those with medium screw base sockets, (2) those with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, and (3) all other CFLKs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(4)) In a technical amendment published on October 18, 2005, DOE codified the statute's requirements for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets and CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps. 70 FR 60413. For all other CFLKs, EPCA specified that the prescribed standard for these CFLKs would become effective only if DOE failed to issue a final rule on energy conservation standards for CFLKs by January 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)) Because DOE did not issue a final rule on standards for CFLKs by January 1, 2007, DOE published a technical amendment that codified the statute's requirements for all CFLKs other than those with medium screw base and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps. 72 FR 1270 (Jan. 11, 2007). DOE subsequently published another technical amendment to codify the EPCA requirement that CFLKs with sockets for pin-based fluorescent lamps be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. 74 FR 12058 (Mar. 3, 2009).
EPCA allows DOE to amend energy conservation standards for CFLKs any time after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(5)) In a separate rulemaking proceeding, DOE is proposing amending energy conservation standards for CFLKs.
This final rule amends DOE's current test procedures for CFLKs contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix V; 10 CFR 429.33; and 10 CFR 430.23(x). This final rule: (1) Requires that representations of efficacy, including certifications of compliance with CFLK standards, be made according to DOE lamp test procedures, where they exist, and industry test procedures where relevant DOE test procedures do not exist; (2) replaces references to superseded ENERGY STAR
To support the ongoing ECS rulemaking for CFLKs, this final rule also establishes test procedures for a single efficiency metric measured in lumens per watt (hereafter, “efficacy”), that is applicable to all CFLKs. These procedures are set forth in a new Appendix V1. Where possible, the CFLK efficiency is determined by measuring the efficacy of the lamp(s) packaged with the CFLK (hereafter, “lamp efficacy”) and requires the use of existing DOE lamp test procedures, so that lamps will be tested and rated in a uniform manner. Where it is technically infeasible to measure lamp efficacy (
In this final rule, DOE also modifies previously issued guidance regarding accent lighting in CFLKs to specify that such light sources in CFLKs must be tested and are subject to current energy conservation standards. DOE also reinterprets the EPCA definition of ceiling fan to include hugger fans and clarifies that ceiling fans that produce large volumes of airflow also meet the EPCA definition. As a result, CFLKs attached to these fans are subject to existing CFLK energy conservation standards. DOE is also clarifying its interpretation regarding compliance with the 190 W limit requirement in 10 CFR 430.32(s)(4) for CFLKs with sockets other than medium screw base and pin-based for fluorescent lamps.
In this final rule, DOE also addresses standby mode and off-mode power consumption for CFLKs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A) and (3)) In summary, DOE accounts for standby mode energy consumption of CFLKs under the efficiency metric for ceiling fans rather than under the CFLK efficiency metric.
In response to the October 2014 NOPR and in addition to comments received during the November 2014 public meeting, DOE received written comments from the American Lighting Association (ALA) and a joint comment filed on behalf of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASAP
This final rule amends existing test procedures to replace references to superseded ENERGY STAR requirements in appendix V with references to existing DOE lamp test procedures or the latest versions of industry standards. As discussed in the paragraphs that follow, DOE has concluded that these changes will not affect any measurements required to comply with existing standards.
For CFLKs with medium screw base sockets, the current DOE test procedure references the “CFL Requirements for Testing” of the “ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Compact Fluorescent Lamps,” Version 3.0, which in turn references the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) LM-66-00 test procedures for lamp efficacy testing. In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the reference to the ENERGY STAR specification with a reference to the current DOE test procedure for medium screw base compact fluorescent lamps (located at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix W). DOE notes that Appendix W currently references IES LM-66-11 and that DOE has proposed to update Appendix W to reference IES LM-66-14. (80 FR 45724, July 31, 2015). DOE received comments from ALA and from ASAP
For CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, the current DOE test procedure at Appendix V references the “ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures,” Version 4.0, which in turn references IES LM-66-00 (for compact fluorescent lamps [CFLs]) and IES LM-9-99 (for all other fluorescent lamps). In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the reference to the ENERGY STAR specification with direct references to the current industry test procedures. At the time of the October 2014 NOPR, the relevant industry standards for pin-based fluorescent lamps were IES LM-66-11 and IES LM-9-09. Subsequent to the October 2014 NOPR, IES LM-66-11 was replaced with IES LM-66-14 as the latest industry version. The IES LM-66-14 update makes a number of changes, including clarifying that electrodeless CFLs are within the scope of LM-66-14. DOE notes that LM-66-11 and LM-66-14 contain the same methodology for testing compact fluorescent lamps and has concluded, based on a review of the updated test method, that there are no changes between LM-66-11 and LM-66-14 that will materially impact the measurement values of pin-based fluorescent lamps, which are tested on commercially available ballasts. In keeping with DOE's proposal from the October 2014 NOPR to reference the most current industry standards, DOE references LM-66-14 in this final rule.
In the NOPR, DOE referenced sections 4-11 of IES LM-66-11 for testing CFLKs with pin-based compact fluorescent lamps. In this final rule, DOE is referencing sections 4-6 of the updated IES LM-66-14. Further, in the NOPR, DOE incorrectly referenced sections 3-7 of IES LM-9-09 for testing CFLKs with pin-based sockets for all other types of fluorescent lamps. In this final rule, DOE is appropriately referencing sections 4-7 of the IES LM-9-09.
The ENERGY STAR program requirements referenced in the current
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the proposed methodology without modification by specifying in appendix V that system efficacy testing of pin-based fluorescent lamps be conducted with ballasts packaged with CFLKs.
CFLK energy conservation standards are codified in 10 CFR 430.32(s). Currently the text in 10 CFR 430.32(s) refers to the superseded ENERGY STAR Program requirements for Compact Fluorescent Lamps, version 3.0, for standards applicable to CFLKs packaged with medium screw base lamps and to the superseded ENERGY STAR Program requirements for Residential Light Fixtures, version 4.0, for standards applicable to CFLKs packaged with pin-based fluorescent lamps. In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the references to ENERGY STAR with tables that contain the specific performance requirements from the ENERGY STAR documents, to state more clearly the minimum requirements for these products. For CFLKs packaged with medium screw base CFLs, the requirements include efficacy, lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle stress, and lifetime requirements. Measurements of these parameters are as defined in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix W. For CFLKs packaged with medium screw base light sources other than CFLs, the requirements include efficacy requirements. For CFLKs packaged with pin-based fluorescent lamps, the requirements include system efficacy and a requirement that electronic ballasts be utilized.
ALA, the only stakeholder to comment on this proposal, agreed with DOE's approach to clarify the text specifying existing standards for CFLKs. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 6) This final rule updates 10 CFR 430.32(s) to directly specify the requirements for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets and for CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps rather than by referencing ENERGY STAR documents to eliminate confusion for stakeholders.
EPCA requires that CFLKs other than those with medium screw base sockets and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4); 10 CFR 430.32(s)(4)) In a December 6, 2006 interpretation, DOE stated that DOE does not consider ceiling fan accent lighting that is not a significant light source to be part of the 190-Watt limitation. (71 FR 71340, Dec. 8, 2006) In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to withdraw this guidance because DOE determined that the guidance requires a subjective determination of what constitutes “a significant light source” that could result in inconsistency in the application of CFLK standards.
While ASAP
In response, consistent with its statements in the October 2014 NOPR, DOE has reconsidered the conclusions that led to the 2006 interpretation. DOE concluded in the 2006 rule that, because EPCA defines a ceiling fan light kit, in part, as equipment “designed to provide light” (42 U.S.C. 6291(50)), and because accent lighting is typically used for decorative purposes rather than to provide “direct” light, accent lighting is not within the EPCA definition of a CFLK. DOE also stated that it was concerned with addressing energy consumption by light sources aligned with the “primary purpose” of the ceiling fan light kit. For ceiling fan light kits, DOE stated that the general illumination provided by the light kit is its principal function, and thus should be subject to the 190-watt limitation. DOE believed that other ancillary lighting, such as accent lighting, serves primarily an aesthetic purpose and is therefore not part of the general illumination function of the ceiling fan light kit. DOE further concluded that not subjecting accent lighting to the 190 watt limitation was consistent with EPCA's treatment of ceiling fan light kits with medium-screw base sockets and those with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps. For these two types of ceiling fan light kits, DOE noted that section 325(ff) of EPCA regulates only lamps inserted into screw base or pin-based sockets, and not any accent lights otherwise incorporated into the fan. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(3))
In reconsidering its conclusions from the 2006 interpretation, DOE notes that the purpose of accent lighting is to provide light. Because EPCA does not specify that only “direct” or “general” lighting fits within the definition at 42 U.S.C. 6291(50), DOE has determined that its previous conclusion was too narrow a reading of the definition of CFLK. The term “designed to provide light” can be interpreted to encompass accent lighting, which provides decorative light. In addition, the 190-watt limitation in 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C) applies to “lamps” to be used in a CFLK, and the term “lamps” does not include or refer to any language limiting its scope to direct or general lighting. Thus, the term “lamps,” in this provision, can be interpreted to encompass lamps or light sources used or intended to be used for accent lighting.
DOE emphasizes the stated purposes of EPCA include the conservation of
DOE has also found that changes in technology since 2006 have made it less important to exclude those accent lighting from the 6295(ff)(4) standard. New lighting technologies that have become common in the market since 2006 make it possible to provide substantial amounts of lighting at low wattage. Thus, the small amount of energy used by lamps that are effective only for accent lighting is not likely to be large enough to cause significant difficulty in complying with the 6295(ff)(4) energy conservation standard. DOE's reconsideration of its conclusions in the 2006 technical amendment is also consistent with DOE's concerns in the 2014 NOPR regarding the subjective determination about what constitutes a “significant light source”. EPCA's provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6291(50) and 6295(ff)(4) are not limited to the significance or, relatedly, purpose of the light source.
In this final rule, after considering public comment, DOE is revising its interpretation of the CFLK definition to state that the requirement for a CFLK to be “designed to provide light” includes all light sources in a ceiling fan light kit—that is, accent lighting in addition to direct or general lighting. DOE is also revising its interpretation of 6295(ff)(4)(C) so that the 190-watt limit covers all lamps—including accent or direct—with which a CFLK is capable of operating. DOE has determined that its previous interpretations were too narrow a reading of the applicable EPCA provisions and led to subjective determinations about what constituted accent lighting that was not a “significant light source” subject to the standard. DOE's reinterpretations do not constitute an energy conservation standard for which 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(5) or 6295(m) would specify a compliance date some years from publication. These provisions apply to amended standards issued under DOE's authorities to amend EPCA standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) (specifying compliance date for “an amendment prescribed under this subsection”); 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(5)(B) (prescribing compliance date for “amended standards issued under subparagraph (A)”). In this final rule, DOE is not prescribing or amending a standard using those authorities. Rather, DOE is reinterpreting the definition of “ceiling fan light kit” and the provision establishing the 190-watt limitation such that kits including only “accent” lighting will be considered CFLKs and all lamps will count toward the 190-watt limit prescribed by EPCA.
DOE recognizes that, as ALA pointed out, the change in DOE's interpretation of the statutory standard changes how the standard operates and how it affects some products. Specifically, some products currently on the market are not consistent with the 190-watt limitation because they enable use of too much energy for the light kit. DOE does not believe that consequence elevates DOE's interpretive action into an amended standard. Every interpretation of a statutory standard has an influence on how the standard operates. Administration of the appliance standards program contemplates the agency's ability to take a variety of different administrative steps that do not rise to an amendment to a standard level; to treat all interpretations as being akin to standards amendments would unnecessarily constrain DOE's ability to undertake necessary steps to implement the statutory regime effectively.
DOE further observes that the compliance date rules in 6295(ff)(5) and 6295(m) are directed specifically at standards amendments, and they address concerns specific to such amendments. EPCA gives DOE fairly wide latitude, within various constraints, to devise the standards best suited to fulfill the statutory purposes as markets and technologies evolve over time. Thus, when DOE develops a new standard, it could in principle be different in nature from the prior standards applicable to a given product. At the same time, DOE must prescribe test procedures for such a new standard. Depending on what new or amended standard DOE prescribes, working out how best to interpret and apply the standard, developing industry expertise with the test procedures, and understanding how to design products to comply with a new standard can require a substantial period of time. Not every amended standard will need the full ramp-up period, but 6295(ff)(5) and 6295(m) ensure that an extended phase-in period will be available whenever DOE prescribes a new or amended standard. By contrast, when DOE simply reinterprets an existing statutory standard, the scope of potential change is much more limited. The standard at issue is familiar and established, and the industry already has experience working with the standard. Thus, the purposes that motivate the compliance date provisions in 6295(ff)(5) and 6295(m) are much less relevant for a reinterpretation.
While DOE's reinterpretation of the CFLK definition and the 190-watt limit requirement will take effect immediately, DOE appreciates the concerns ALA has raised regarding the lead time needed for manufacturers to bring affected products into compliance with the relevant statutory standards. Specifically, ALA contends that “the process of redesigning, obtaining regulatory approval for, and manufacturing and delivering redesigned CFLKs could take eight to sixteen months under normal circumstances. However, because much of the CFLK industry will be engaged in this process at the same time, these steps could take two years or more for a typical manufacturer.” ALA further commented in its written comments that if DOE were to withdraw the accent lighting guidance, the effective date of this change should be at the compliance
In addition, at the November 2014 public meeting, a representative of Emerson Electric estimated that it would take 120 days minimum to redesign and requalify new imports for safety organizations such as UL, and requested that it be afforded about six months. Further Emerson Electric stated that 30 days lead time was enough for existing inventory of CFLKs that would be reinterpreted as accent lighting to be sold. (Emerson Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4 at p. 76) Also, noting that DOE's proposed reinterpretation of ceiling fans (see section III.A.5) affects light kits Westinghouse stated that 30 days would not be sufficient to review the CFLK product lines, to modify or build materials, and add wattage limiters in applicable products. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4 at pp. 73-74) The Minka Group provided further information regarding timing noting that products shipped from Asia realistically require 30 days to reach the U.S. with possible additional times for customs. (The Minka Group, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4 at p. 83)
In its consideration of these comments, DOE recognizes that re-designing, testing and rating, manufacturing, and shipping fan lighting products that comply with the 190-watt limit will take many months. DOE relied on estimates provided by manufacturers to determine an appropriate lead time to bring products that are compliant with this requirement to market. DOE used ALA's upper bound estimate for each of the processes ALA identified to get a conservative lead time estimate as well as taking the manufacturer-specific feedback into consideration. ALA estimated up to six months for redesign, up to 4 months for testing and rating, and up to 6 months for production and shipping, resulting in a total upper bound lead time of 16 months under normal conditions (ALA, No. 6 at p. 4) DOE understands that delays may occur if a large part of the industry is conducting these activities simultaneously. In response to the October 2014 ceiling fan test procedure NOPR, ALA submitted a similar comment that estimated the total upper bound lead time to be 18 months including testing and rating delays. (ALA, Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050, No. 8 at p. 2) Based on these estimates, DOE believes 18 months is an appropriate lead time because it is consistent with ALA's upper bound lead time estimate including extra time for delays. DOE notes that other manufacturers' estimated lead times were as short as 6 months. In addition, varying manufacturer estimates for lead times indicates to DOE that not all manufacturers in the industry will be conducting the same activities and vying for the resources necessary to do so simultaneously. Accordingly, while DOE's interpretation will be effective immediately, DOE will not assert civil penalty authority for violations of the applicable standards arising as a result of this guidance before June 26, 2017. After June 26, 2017, DOE will begin enforcing the 190-watt standard in accordance with the interpretations announced here. In enforcing the standard, DOE will take into consideration a manufacturer's efforts to come into compliance during the 18-month period.
In a test procedure rulemaking for ceiling fans, DOE also proposed to reinterpret the definition of a ceiling fan. 79 FR 62521 (Oct. 17, 2014). EPCA defines a ceiling fan as a “nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades.” 42 U.S.C. 6291(49). DOE previously interpreted the definition of a ceiling fan such that it excluded certain types of ceiling fans commonly referred to as hugger fans. 71 FR 71343 (Dec. 8, 2006). Hugger ceiling fans are typically understood to be set flush to the ceiling (
DOE notes that the current market includes fans that DOE did not account for in its 2006 interpretation. The market includes a range of a multi-mount ceiling fans,
DOE also proposed that fans capable of producing large volumes of airflow meet the definition of a ceiling fan. 79 FR 62521 (Oct. 17, 2014).
In response to the Framework Document for the ceiling fan energy conservation standards rulemaking, several commenters, including the ALA, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) supported DOE's proposed reinterpretation. (ALA, No. 39
While ALA supported DOE's proposal, ALA also commented that the effective date of this change should be at the compliance date for amended ceiling fan energy conservation standards. (ALA, No. 8
In this final rule, after considering public comment, DOE reinterprets the definition of ceiling fan to include hugger fans. In addition, under this interpretation, any ceiling fan sold with the option of being mounted in either a hugger configuration or a standard configuration is included within the “ceiling fan” definition. For the reasons stated in the October 2014 ceiling fan test procedure proposed rule, DOE also finalizes its interpretation to include fans capable of producing large volumes of airflow. Under DOE's reinterpretation, DOE considers the following fans to be covered under the definition of “ceiling fan” in 10 CFR 430.2:
1. Fans suspended from the ceiling using a downrod or other means of suspension such that the fan is not mounted directly to the ceiling;
2. Fans suspended such that they are mounted directly or close to the ceiling;
3. Fans sold with the option of being suspended with or without a downrod; and
4. Fans capable of producing large volumes of airflow.
As in the discussion on accent lighting, DOE notes that its reinterpretation does not constitute an “amended standard” for which the compliance-date provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6) and 6295(m) would apply. In this final rule, DOE is not prescribing a standard; rather, DOE is reinterpreting the definition of “ceiling fan” to include hugger fans and fans capable of producing large volumes of airflow. The changes in interpretation of the ceiling fan definition discussed above result in the applicability of the design standards set forth in EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(1) to these types of fans immediately. In addition, because ceiling fan light kits are defined as “equipment designed to provide light from a ceiling fan that can be integral, such that the equipment is attached to the ceiling fan prior to the time of retail sale; or attachable, such that at the time of retail sale the equipment is not physically attached to the ceiling fan, but may be included inside the ceiling fan at the time of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment to the fan” (42 U.S.C. 6291(50)(A) and (B)), DOE further affirms that light kits attached to any of the four fan types listed above are covered ceiling fan light kits under this change in interpretation.
DOE understands the concerns raised regarding the need for additional time for redesigning, testing, certifying and labeling hugger fans and light kits attached to those fans. In the test procedure rulemaking for ceiling fans, ALA submitted comments similar to those in the present rulemaking, contending that this process could take eight to sixteen months “under normal circumstances,” and as much as two years or more due to the simultaneous activities of the ceiling fan industry. In its upper bound estimate, ALA factored in delays due to redesign, backlog at third-party test laboratories, and/or shipping delays for fans, light kits, or components. (ALA, No. 8
In its consideration of these comments, DOE recognizes that re-designing, testing and rating, and producing and shipping fan lighting products that comply with the 190-watt limit will take many months. DOE relied on estimates provided by manufacturers to determine an appropriate lead time to bring products that are compliant with this requirement to market (see section III.A.4). Based on these estimates, DOE has concluded that 18 months is an appropriate lead time because it is consistent with ALA's upper bound lead time estimate including extra time for delays. DOE notes that other manufacturers' estimated lead times as short as 6 months. In addition, varying manufacturer estimates for lead times indicates to DOE that not all manufacturers in the industry will be conducting the same activities and vying for the resources necessary to do so simultaneously.
While DOE's interpretation is effective immediately, DOE will not assert civil penalty authority for violations of the applicable standards arising as a result of this interpretation before June 26, 2017. DOE expects all hugger ceiling fans and any accompanying light kits to be certified compliant by June 26, 2017, and annually thereafter. DOE will take into consideration a manufacturer's efforts to come into compliance during the 18-month period.
Current standards require that CFLKs with medium screw base sockets, or pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, be packaged with lamps that meet certain efficiency requirements. All other CFLKs must not be capable of operating with lamps that exceed 190 W. In the final rule for energy conservation standards for certain CFLKs published on January 11, 2007, DOE interpreted this 190 W limitation as a requirement to incorporate an electrical device or measure that ensures the light kit is not capable of operating with a lamp or lamps that draw more than a total of 190 W. 72 FR 1270, 1271 (Jan. 11, 2007).
During the November 2014 public meeting, ALA and several of their members sought clarifications from DOE on the applicability of the 190 W limit for CFLKs with integrated SSL components. Specifically, these stakeholders suggested that CFLKs with only integrated SSL components are inherently power limiting and that consumers would be unable to modify these CFLKs in a manner that increases their operating power beyond their rated wattage. These stakeholders suggested that DOE consider clarifying that CFLKs that only have drivers and/or light sources that are not designed to be consumer replaceable with total rated wattages below 190 W be considered to be in compliance with the requirement that they not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 W, as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C).
In the CFLK ECS NOPR, DOE proposed that CFLKs with SSL circuitry
DOE received several comments regarding the consumer replaceable requirements in its proposal in the CFLK ECS NOPR. Specifically, ALA requested that these requirements be removed and that DOE adopt the interpretation that CFLKs with integrated SSL components and SSL drivers with a maximum operating wattage of no more than 190 W and no other light source comply with EPCA's power limit requirement. (ALA, No. 115
ALA asserted its proposed clarification was consistent with section 325(ff)(4) of EPCA
ASAP agreed that the lumen output at a wattage limit of 190 W would be too high for residential applications. However, ASAP asked if such a high-lumen CFLK could be developed for commercial applications in which CFLKs are mounted higher and require greater levels of light output. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112
Fanimation pointed out that a non-consumer replaceable requirement would create maintenance difficulties for consumers as they would not be able to replace failed components, in particular the light source. (Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112
Even if consumers did want to increase the wattage, ALA stated there are no commercially available components that would allow them to do so without destructive disassembly/assembly. (ALA, No. 115
ASAP stated that they interpreted consumer replaceable to refer to components not requiring tools or removal of the fan from mounting. Therefore, ASAP found that the non-consumer replaceable requirement would prevent incandescent light sources from being used in CFLKs. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112
Regarding designs of CFLKs with integrated SSL components, Fanimation stated that a non-consumer replaceable requirement would put design restrictions on CFLKs. (Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112
In a joint comment, ASAP, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the National Resources Defense Council, and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“Joint Comment”) and CA IOUs generally agreed that CFLKs meeting the four conditions specified in DOE's proposed interpretation would not exceed 190 W. The Joint Comment, however, did not agree with stating that all CFLKs with integrated SSL components should be determined to not exceed the 190 W limit requirement as this could exclude products such as CFLKs with integrated SSL components and another lighting technology. (Joint Comment, No. 117
In consideration of these comments, DOE concludes that the high efficacies of SSL technology would produce lumen output equivalent to the lumen output of a CFLK with incandescent lamps operating at 190 W but at a much lower wattage. DOE concluded that if a consumer were to increase the operating wattage of a CFLK with SSL technology to a significantly higher wattage than that of the SSL system initially sold with the CFLK, the consumer would need to change the driver. DOE concluded this is unlikely because significant increases in the rated wattage of drivers result in significant size increases in the drivers, and the physical constraints of the CFLK designs would not allow for such modification.
In this final rule, DOE is modifying its interpretation of what meets the 190 W limit requirement. DOE has determined that CFLKs with both consumer and non-consumer replaceable SSL components meet the requirement under certain conditions. The CFLKs must use only SSL technology (such as LED technology). The CFLKs must not use an SSL lamp with an ANSI standard base (such as a medium screw base LED lamp) because the consumer could easily remove and replace the lamp with one using less efficient (and typically higher wattage) lighting technology. Thus, DOE has determined that CFLKs that (1) include only SSL technology; (2) do not include an SSL lamp with an ANSI standard base, and (3) include only SSL drivers with a combined maximum operating wattage of no more than 190 W meet the 190 W limit requirement. For example, CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry or with other SSL products, such as LED light engines, would meet the limit requirement assuming the CFLKs do not also include other non-SSL lighting technologies, do not also include lamps with ANSI standard bases, and do not include SSL drivers that, combined, can exceed 190 W.
Fanimation asked if DOE would be defining the term “consumer replaceable” in support of the proposed clarification regarding CFLKs with integrated SSL technology. (Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112
ALA requested that DOE make the clarification of the wattage limiter requirement for CFLKs with integrated SSL components effective as soon as possible, either in a separate notice or in this final rule. (ALA, No. 115
DOE is issuing this interpretation of the 190 W limit requirement for CFLKs with SSL technology meeting the conditions described in this section effective with publication of the final rule in the
In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the CFLK test procedures to expand the efficacy metric to all CFLKs in support of the amended standards being considered as part of the ongoing ECS rulemaking for CFLKs. In the ECS rulemaking, DOE proposed to require that all CFLKs meet minimum efficacy requirements, as is currently required for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps. 80 FR 48624 (August 13, 2015).
In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend 10 CFR 429.33 to provide sampling requirements and amend 10 CFR 430.23 to reference lamp test procedures to measure the lamp efficacy of each basic model of a lamp type packaged with a CFLK and to measure the luminaire efficacy of each basic model of CFLK with integrated SSL circuitry.
The following sections describe the change in metric for certain CFLKs and how DOE will require measuring lamp and luminaire efficacy to demonstrate compliance with any amended standards.
In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the CFLK test procedures that would establish a single metric (efficacy) to quantify the energy efficiency of CFLKs. To the extent technologically feasible, DOE proposed to use lamp efficacy as the measure of efficiency. DOE noted that for CFLKs with integrated solid-state lighting circuitry, it may not be technologically feasible to measure lamp efficacy and thus proposed using luminaire efficacy as the metric for these CFLKs.
ASAP
ALA supported DOE's proposal to use efficacy as a metric for all CFLKs. ALA also supported DOE's proposal to use lamp efficacy where technically feasible, noting that this approach would minimize the testing burden for CFLK manufacturers. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 1) ALA opposed DOE's proposal to use luminaire efficacy as a metric for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry, however. (ALA, No. 6 at pp. 1-3) ALA claimed that using luminaire efficacy would be more burdensome than using lamp efficacy. ALA noted that a luminaire efficacy metric would require testing every variant of a luminaire cover used to make a CFLK with integrated SSL circuitry, resulting in more required testing than analogous CFLKs with replaceable lamps. ALA further claimed that using luminaire efficacy would unfairly disadvantage CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry (particularly those with dark-colored or opaque luminaire covers) as compared to other CFLK types. This is because the luminaire efficacy testing would account for optical losses from covers included with CFLKs that have integrated SSL circuitry, while the lamp efficacy testing DOE proposed for all other CFLKs would not account for any CFLK covers.
ALA suggested alternatives to luminaire efficacy of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry. ALA suggested it may be possible to conduct IES LM-79-08 testing on SSL light engines after they are removed from the CFLK. ALA also proposed an alternative compliance path by which CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry would be subject to a design standard that they not exceed 50 W rather than be subject to a luminaire efficacy-based metric and test procedure. Lastly, ALA suggested that if DOE does adopt a luminaire efficacy metric for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry, DOE should modify its approach so that testing is conducted without luminaire covers to eliminate the need for multiple tests associated with different covers, as well as to make test results more comparable to other CFLK types.
Regarding ALA's comments that it may be possible to make accurate and consistent light source efficacy measurements on the integrated SSL light engines in CFLKs using LM-79-08, DOE notes that the scope of LM-79-08 is limited to SSL products that do not require external circuits or heat sinks. In some CFLK designs, it may be possible for all SSL light sources, drivers, heat sinks, and intermediate circuitry to be removed as an integrated unit. This integrated unit would either meet DOE's definition of an integrated LED lamp or the definition of “Other SSL products” as defined in appendix V1. In these cases, test methods proposed in the October 2014 NOPR would allow manufactures to utilize lamp efficacy measurements rather than luminaire efficacy measures.
DOE notes that IES LM-82-12, “Characterization of LED Light Engines and LED Lamps for Electrical and Photometric Properties as a Function of Temperature,” may be applicable to situations where SSL light engines are used in combination with additional heat sinks that are not removable from the CFLK. However, test procedures based on measurements of integrated SSL light engines would present challenges for testing reproducibility. Because LED modules and drivers are highly integrated into the CFLK in some CFLK designs, it may be technically infeasible to test without destructively altering the product being tested. Because the design of integrated SSL CFLKs can vary considerably, it would also be difficult to develop uniform and reproducible procedures to ensure that all relevant components from an integrated SSL CFLK are consistently included in testing. Additionally, an approach utilizing LM-82-12 may increase testing burden. LM-82-12 requires using LM-79-08 to make photometric measurements at multiple temperatures to characterize how performance of the device varies over a range of temperatures. The stabilized temperature of an LED light engine must then be measured inside a luminaire (
DOE has also declined to adopt ALA's suggestion to utilize a 50 W design standard for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry, instead of requiring use of the proposed test procedure to determine compliance of these CFLKs with a luminaire efficacy-based metric. DOE's test method meets the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), which requires DOE to establish test procedures that are “designed to produce test results which measure energy-efficiency . . . during a representative average use cycle or period of use” that “shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” ALA's suggestion may limit energy consumption but does not provide consumers with representative energy efficiency of the product.
As an alternative, DOE reviewed ALA's recommendation to allow CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry to be tested without covers. The suggested approach could potentially reduce testing burden associated with certifying multiple models of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry that are functionally identical except for the use of different covers. DOE agrees that measurements of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry without covers may be more comparable to CFLKs with consumer replaceable lamps. DOE has added a definition for “covers” to this test procedure to clarify which components can be removed before testing. Specifically, covers are defined as, “materials used to diffuse or redirect light produced by an SSL light source in CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry.” DOE allows for the removal of consumer replaceable lenses or diffusers from CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry prior to luminaire efficacy testing. DOE does not allow for the removal of any other components of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry (
DOE notes that utilizing an efficacy metric for all CFLK types will likely increase testing burden in some cases—particularly for CFLKs that are currently subject to the wattage limiter requirement. But the wattage limiter would no longer be needed for compliance with the proposed standards,
In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference existing DOE test procedures and to reference industry standard test procedures only where DOE test procedures do not exist. With the exception of ALA's comment about the use of luminaire efficacy as a metric (discussed in section III.B.1), ALA and ASAP
For a CFLK that utilizes only consumer replaceable lamps, manufacturers must measure the lamp efficacy of and certify each basic model of lamp packaged with the CFLK. For any CFLK with only integrated SSL circuitry, manufacturers must measure the luminaire efficacy of and certify the CFLK. For any CFLK that includes both consumer replaceable lamps and integrated SSL circuitry, manufacturers must measure the lamp efficacy of and certify each basic model of lamp packaged with the CFLK and must measure the luminaire efficacy and certify the CFLK with all consumer replaceable lamps removed.
In the NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for the term “consumer replaceable.” However, DOE has determined this term is self-explanatory and a definition is not required. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not adopting a definition for “consumer replaceable.”
DOE believes that CFLKs do not consume power in off mode, and that only CFLKs offering the functionality of a wireless remote control may consume power in standby mode. Because the standby sensor and controller nearly always provide functionality shared between the ceiling fan and the CFLK, DOE proposed in the October 2014 NOPR to account for the energy consumption in standby mode under the ceiling fan efficiency metric rather than under the CFLK efficiency metric. ALA, the only stakeholder to comment on the proposal, agreed with DOE's approach to account for standby power usage in the ceiling fan test procedure rather than in the CFLK test procedure. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 6) Therefore, DOE maintains this approach in this final rule.
The effective date for this final rule is 30 days after publication in the
DOE's updated guidance for CFLKs with accent lighting and reinterpretation of the ceiling fan definition is effective immediately. However, DOE will not assert civil penalty authority for violations of the applicable standards arising as a result of the interpretive changes before June 26, 2017.
DOE's interpretation of the 190 watt limiter requirement prescribed in the standards set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(s)(4) is also effective immediately.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. The final rule prescribes the test procedure amendments that would be used to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for CFLKs.
DOE analyzed the burden to small manufacturers in both the context of the modifications to the existing CFLK test procedures made in appendix V and associated CFRs, as well as in the context of the test procedures to implement an efficacy metric for all covered CFLKs in appendix V1 and amended associated CFRs. With respect to amendments to existing CFLK test procedures, DOE determined that these changes will not have a material impact on small U.S. manufacturers because the changes will not alter the test procedures themselves, but rather, how they are referenced. With respect to test procedures to implement an efficacy metric for all covered CFLKs, however, DOE found that because the amendments will require efficiency performance testing of certain CFLKs that had not required testing previously, all manufacturers, including a substantial number of small manufacturers, may experience a financial burden associated with new testing requirements. While most CFLK manufacturers will likely be able to utilize lamp testing already conducted by lamp manufacturers for certification of most CFLKs, based on the similar assessment DOE made at the time of the NOPR, DOE prepared an IRFA for this rulemaking, which was included in the October 2014 NOPR and a copy was also transmitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review. DOE did not receive any comments specifically on the IRFA from stakeholders or from the SBA. Stakeholder comments received on the economic impacts of the proposed rule have been addressed elsewhere in the preamble. The FRFA set forth below, which describes the potential impacts on small businesses associated with CFLK testing requirements, incorporates the IRFA while updating the analysis for consistency with the shipments estimates in the ongoing CFLK and ceiling fan energy conservation standard rulemakings.
A statement of the need for and objectives of the rule is stated elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
Comments on the economic impacts of the proposed rule and DOE's responses to those comments are provided elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here. As noted above, DOE updated its analysis for this rule consistent with the shipments estimates in the ongoing CFLK and ceiling fan energy conservation standard rulemakings. DOE modified the proposed rule based on stakeholder comments related to economic impacts. Specifically, as discussed in detail in the preamble, DOE clarified that the 190 W limit requirement is met by CFLKs that (1) include only SSL technology; (2) do not include an SSL lamp with an ANSI standard base, and (3) include only SSL drivers with a combined maximum operating wattage of no more than 190 W. DOE also specified that CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry could be tested without removable optical covers. These changes are expected to reduce the overall economic impact of the rule.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not provide any comments on this rule.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold for manufacturers, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule.
To identify small CFLK manufacturers, DOE used feedback from manufacturer interviews and results from an industry characterization analysis, which consists of the market and technology assessment, manufacturer interviews, and publicly available information. DOE then reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met the SBA's definition of a “small business manufacturer” of CFLKs and screened out companies that do not offer products subject to this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign-owned and operated. Based on this review, and using data on the companies for which DOE was able to obtain information on the numbers of employees, DOE identified 27 small business CFLK manufacturers
DOE has determined that total CFLK testing costs for small business manufacturers of CFLKs may increase based on changes to the size of the market of covered ceiling fan light kits
Based on the analysis described in the remainder of this section, DOE expects the new test procedures to implement an efficacy metric for all covered CFLKs to increase direct testing costs to small CFLK manufacturers. Because compliance with the proposed standards
DOE requires testing each basic model of a product to establish compliance with energy conservation standards. Products included in a single basic model must have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy efficiency. Because the efficiency of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry is based on luminaire efficacy, variation in light kit designs will likely impact efficiency and result in a greater number of basic models for these types of CFLKs. As noted in section III.B.1, CFLK manufacturers may test CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry without covers, in part to reduce testing burden. This allows CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry that are identical expect for the use of different covers to be classified as the same basic model. For CFLKs with consumer replaceable lamps, efficiency is based on lamp efficacy and will likely not be impacted by the design of the light kit, and thus the number of basic models may be limited for these types of CFLKs. Because these CFLKs require lamp testing, changes in luminaire optics, like lens choice, will not affect the measured efficacy, and therefore would not require a new basic model. For these CFLKs, manufacturers will be able to limit the testing burden by using the same lamp model for many CFLK models and/or by obtaining appropriate lamp test results from their lamp supplier(s).
In the sections below, DOE provides an assessment test burden due to the change in test procedures. To provide a framework for DOE's analysis, Table 2 summarizes the market share of different CFLK types and describes how they would be affected by the changes in testing requirements. The assessment reflects the size and composition of a CFLK market which includes CFLKs attached to hugger fans and therefore accounts for the testing costs associated with such CFLKs. The market share projections in Table 2 are for the expected compliance year of the ongoing ECS rulemaking for CFLKs (2019) as estimated in the CFLK ECS NOPR. 80 FR 48624 (August 13, 2015). These market shares reflect DOE's reinterpretation of the definition of ceiling fan to include hugger fans.
As shown in Table 2, the new test procedures do not affect testing burden for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets, because no new testing requirements are required for these CFLKs. DOE assumes that 66 percent of CFLKs with socket types other than medium screw base will transition to CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry (requiring luminaire efficacy measurements) by 2019, while the remaining 34 percent will transition to CFLKs requiring lamp efficacy measurements.
The degree to which testing costs are offset by savings from the elimination of the wattage limiter depends significantly on the number of CFLKs produced per basic model. That is, testing costs are fixed per basic model, but the costs associated with the wattage limiter increase in direct proportion with the total number of CFLKs subject to the requirement. DOE estimates that small manufacturers typically produce about 5,900 CFLKs per basic model per
In summary, DOE notes that the estimated savings of the new test procedures greatly exceed the estimated costs to small manufacturers. While these estimates are based on a number of projections and assumptions that have inherent uncertainties, given the degree to which projected savings exceed projected costs, DOE concludes that the new test procedures, which implement an efficacy metric for all covered CFLKs, will not increase compliance costs for small manufacturers of CFLKs.
DOE considered alternatives to the test procedures for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry to determine if it was feasible to measure lamp efficacy rather that luminaire efficacy. Specifically, DOE explored the possibility of testing the consumer replaceable SSL light sources and drivers for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry rather than testing the entire CFLK. DOE explored the possibility of adopting LM-82-12 for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry. Such a method would potentially reduce testing costs (particularly if the same LED module and driver were used in multiple basic models of CFLKs) and would yield test procedures more analogous to the test procedures proposed for all other CFLK types. DOE has concluded that this approach is not technically feasible, however, because: (1) DOE cannot be certain that test results of the LED module and driver would accurately represent the performance of the system when it was installed in the CFLK because the CFLK could provide heat sinking to the LED module in a manner that affected performance; and (2) it is not clear that it would be possible to test for compliance without destructively altering the product being tested because in some CFLK designs, LED modules and drivers are highly integrated into the CFLK. Furthermore, DOE was not able to determine if such an approach would increase or decrease testing burden.
DOE also considered alternatives to the new test procedures for measuring lamp efficacy. Specifically, DOE considered maintaining the current design standard that requires wattage limiters for certain types of CFLKs. As discussed previously, DOE concluded that the new test procedures would not increase compliance costs and are in fact more likely to decrease compliance cost because of the cost savings from eliminating wattage limiter costs.
Manufacturers of CFLKs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including CFLKs.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for CFLKs to more accurately measure the energy consumption of these products. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it would 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
When reviewing existing regulations or promulgating new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of CFLKs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the following commercial standards: IES LM-66-2014, “IES Approved Method Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Ended Compact Fluorescent Lamps” and IES LM-79-2008, “IES Approved Method Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products.” The Department has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the following industry standards: (1) IES LM-66-14 (“IES LM-66-14”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Based
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(a)
(1) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to ceiling fan light kits, and
(2) For each basic model of ceiling fan light kit, the following sample size requirements are applicable to demonstrate compliance with the January 1, 2007 energy conservation standards:
(i) For ceiling fan light kits with medium screw base sockets that are packaged with compact fluorescent lamps, determine the represented values of each basic model of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan light kit in accordance with § 429.35.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) For ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets that are packaged with fluorescent lamps, determine the represented values of each basic model of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan light kit in accordance with the sampling requirements in § 429.35.
(iv) For ceiling fan light kits with medium screw base sockets that are packaged with incandescent lamps, determine the represented values of each basic model of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan light kit in accordance with § 429.27.
(v) For ceiling fan light kits with sockets or packaged with lamps other than those described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section, each unit must comply with the applicable design standard in § 430.32(s)(4) of this chapter.
(3) For ceiling fan light kits required to comply with amended energy conservation standards, if established:
(i) Determine the represented values of each basic model of lamp packaged with each basic model of ceiling fan light kit, in accordance with the specified section:
(A) For compact fluorescent lamps, § 429.35;
(B) For general service fluorescent lamps, § 429.27;
(C) For incandescent lamps, § 429.27;
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For other fluorescent lamps (not compact fluorescent lamps or general service fluorescent lamps), § 429.35; and
(F) [Reserved]
(ii) Determine the represented value of each basic model of integrated SSL circuitry that is incorporated into each basic model of ceiling fan light kit by randomly selecting a sample of sufficient size and testing to ensure that any represented value of the energy efficiency of the integrated SSL circuitry basic model is less than or equal to the lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and, x
(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.90, where:
And x
(c)
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The additions read as follows:
(o) * * *
(8) IES LM-66-14, (“IES LM-66-14”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical
(9) IES LM-79-08, (“IES LM-79-08”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products, approved December 31, 2007; IBR approved for appendix V1 to subpart B.
(x)
(i) For a ceiling fan light kit with medium screw base sockets that is packaged with compact fluorescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy, lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle stress test, and time to failure in accordance with paragraph (y) of this section.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) For a ceiling fan light kit with pin-based sockets that is packaged with fluorescent lamps, measure system efficacy in accordance with section 4 of appendix V of this subpart.
(iv) For a ceiling fan light kit with medium screw base sockets that is packaged with incandescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy in accordance with paragraph (r) of this section.
(2) For each ceiling fan light kit that is required to comply with amended energy conservation standards, if established:
(i) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with compact fluorescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy, lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle stress test, and time to failure in accordance with paragraph (y) of this section for each lamp basic model.
(ii) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with general service fluorescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy in accordance with paragraph (r) of this section for each lamp basic model.
(iii) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with incandescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy in accordance with paragraph (r) of this section for each lamp basic model.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with other fluorescent lamps (not compact fluorescent lamps or general service fluorescent lamps), packaged with other SSL products (not integrated LED lamps) or with integrated SSL circuitry, measure efficacy in accordance with section 3 of appendix V1 of this subpart for each lamp basic model or integrated SSL basic model.
Prior to June 21, 2016, manufacturers must make any representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this Appendix V or the procedures in Appendix V as it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix V, in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2015. On or after June 21, 2016, manufacturers must make any representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this appendix to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(s)(3).
Alternatively, manufacturers may make representations based on testing in accordance with appendix V1 to this subpart, provided that such representations demonstrate compliance with the amended energy conservation standards. Manufacturers must make all representations with respect to energy use or efficiency in accordance with whichever version is selected for testing.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
The test apparatus and instructions for testing pin-based fluorescent lamps packaged with ceiling fan light kits that have pin-based sockets must conform to the following requirements:
Measure system efficacy as follows and express the result in lumens per watt:
Any representations about the energy use or efficiency of any ceiling fan light kit packaged with fluorescent lamps other than compact fluorescent lamps or general service fluorescent lamps, packaged with SSL products other than integrated LED lamps, or with integrated SSL circuitry made on or after the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards must be based on testing pursuant to this appendix. Manufacturers may make representations based on testing in accordance with this appendix prior to the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, provided that such representations demonstrate compliance with the amended energy conservation standards.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
For any CFLK that utilizes consumer replaceable lamps, measure the lamp efficacy of each basic model of lamp packaged with the CFLK. For any CFLK only with integrated SSL circuitry, measure the luminaire efficacy of the CFLK. For any CFLK that includes both consumer replaceable lamps and integrated SSL circuitry, measure both the lamp efficacy of each basic model of lamp packaged with the CFLK and the luminaire efficacy of the CFLK with all consumer replaceable lamps removed. Take measurements at full light output. Do not use a goniophotometer. For each test, use the test procedures in the table below. CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry and consumer replaceable covers may be measured with their covers removed but must otherwise be measured according to the table below.
(s) * * *
(2) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2007 with medium screw base sockets must be packaged with medium screw base lamps to fill all sockets. These medium screw base lamps must—
(i) Be compact fluorescent lamps that meet or exceed the following requirements or be as described in paragraph (s)(2)(ii) of this section:
(ii) Be light sources other than compact fluorescent lamps that have lumens per watt performance at least equivalent to comparably configured compact fluorescent lamps meeting the energy conservation standards in paragraph (s)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2007 with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps must use an electronic ballast and be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. These lamp ballast platforms must meet the following requirements:
(4) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2009 with socket types other than those covered in paragraphs (s)(2) or (3) of this section, including candelabra screw base sockets, shall be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets and shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; Official interpretations; Correction.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is making technical corrections to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) and the Official Interpretations of Regulation Z. These corrections republish certain provisions of Regulation Z and the Official Interpretations that were inadvertently removed from or not incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations by the “Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)” final rule (TILA-RESPA Final Rule).
These corrections are effective on December 24, 2015.
Paul Ceja, Senior Counsel and Special Advisor, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.
In November 2013, pursuant to sections 1098 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
The publication of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule in the
Specifically, this final rule makes the following corrections to reinsert existing regulatory text that was inadvertently deleted from Regulation Z and its commentary:
• Amends § 1026.22(a)(5) to restore subparagraphs (i) and (ii).
• Amends the commentary to § 1026.17 at paragraph 17(c)(1)-2 to restore subparagraphs i, ii, and iii.
• Amends commentary paragraph 17(c)(1)-4 to restore subparagraphs i.A, and i.B.
• Amends commentary paragraph 17(c)(1)-10 to restore introductory text and subparagraphs iii, iv, and vi.
• Amends commentary paragraph 17(c)(1)-11 to restore subparagraphs i, ii, iii, and iv.
• Amends commentary paragraph 17(c)(1)-12 to restore subparagraphs i, ii, and iii.
• Amends commentary paragraph 17(c)(4)-1 to restore subparagraphs i and ii.
• Amends commentary paragraph 17(g)-1 to restore subparagraphs i and ii.
• Amends the commentary to § 1026.18 at paragraph 18(g)-4 to restore text to subparagraph i.
This rule also amends the commentary to appendix D to Regulation Z to add paragraph 7 that had been included in the TILA-RESPA Final Rule published in the
These technical corrections are non-substantive changes to the TILA-RESPA Final Rule. No changes have been made to the deleted or omitted text or any text of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule that has already been codified in the CFR. To eliminate confusion among interested persons, the Bureau is republishing all paragraphs containing the deleted and omitted text in their entirety.
The Bureau is issuing these technical corrections solely to correct the CFR. The Bureau finds that there is good cause to publish these corrections without seeking public comment, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Public comment is unnecessary because the rule merely makes technical changes to ensure that the TILA-RESPA Final Rule appears in the CFR as the Bureau intended and because it corrects inadvertent, technical errors about
Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
(a) * * *
(5)
(i) If the disclosed finance charge is understated, and the disclosed annual percentage rate is also understated but it is closer to the actual annual percentage rate than the rate that would be considered accurate under paragraph (a)(4) of this section;
(ii) If the disclosed finance charge is overstated, and the disclosed annual percentage rate is also overstated but it is closer to the actual annual percentage rate than the rate that would be considered accurate under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Section 1026.17—General Disclosure Requirements
2.
i. If the creditor offers a preferential rate, such as an employee preferred rate, the disclosures should reflect the terms of the legal obligation. (See the commentary to § 1026.19(b) for an example of a preferred-rate transaction that is a variable-rate transaction.)
ii. If the contract provides for a certain monthly payment schedule but payments are made on a voluntary payroll deduction plan or an informal principal-reduction agreement, the disclosures should reflect the schedule in the contract.
iii. If the contract provides for regular monthly payments but the creditor informally permits the consumer to defer payments from time to time, for instance, to take account of holiday seasons or seasonal employment, the disclosures should reflect the regular monthly payments.
4.
i. For example:
A. The amount paid by the consumer is a prepaid finance charge (even if deposited in an escrow account).
B. A composite annual percentage rate must be calculated, taking into account both interest rates, as well as the effect of the prepaid finance charge.
C. The disclosures under §§ 1026.18(g) and (s), 1026.37(c), and 1026.38(c), as applicable, must reflect the multiple rate and payment levels resulting from the buydown, except as otherwise provided in those sections. Further, for example, the disclosures must reflect that the transaction is a step rate product under §§ 1026.37(a)(10)(B) and 1026.38(a)(5)(iii).
ii. The rules regarding consumer buydowns do not apply to transactions known as “lender buydowns.” In lender buydowns, a creditor pays an amount (either into an account or to the party to
10.
i. When creditors use an initial interest rate that is not calculated using the index or formula for later rate adjustments, the disclosures should reflect a composite annual percentage rate based on the initial rate for as long as it is charged and, for the remainder of the term, the rate that would have been applied using the index or formula at the time of consummation. The rate at consummation need not be used if a contract provides for a delay in the implementation of changes in an index value. For example, if the contract specifies that rate changes are based on the index value in effect 45 days before the change date, creditors may use any index value in effect during the 45 day period before consummation in calculating a composite annual percentage rate.
ii. The effect of the multiple rates must also be reflected in the calculation and disclosure of the finance charge, total of payments, and the disclosures required under §§ 1026.18(g) and (s), 1026.37(c), 1026.37(l)(1) and (3), 1026.38(c), and 1026.38(o)(5), as applicable.
iii. If a loan contains a rate or payment cap that would prevent the initial rate or payment, at the time of the first adjustment, from changing to the rate determined by the index or formula at consummation, the effect of that rate or payment cap should be reflected in the disclosures.
iv. Because these transactions involve irregular payment amounts, an annual percentage rate tolerance of
v. Examples of discounted variable-rate transactions include:
A. A 30-year loan for $100,000 with no prepaid finance charges and rates determined by the Treasury bill rate plus two percent. Rate and payment adjustments are made annually. Although the Treasury bill rate at the time of consummation is 10 percent, the creditor sets the interest rate for one year at 9 percent, instead of 12 percent according to the formula. The disclosures should reflect a composite annual percentage rate of 11.63 percent based on 9 percent for one year and 12 percent for 29 years. Reflecting those two rate levels, the payment schedule disclosed pursuant to § 1026.18(g) should show 12 payments of $804.62 and 348 payments of $1,025.31. Similarly, the disclosures required by §§ 1026.18(s), 1026.37(c), 1026.37(l)(1) and (3), 1026.38(c), and 1026.38(o)(5) should reflect the effect of this calculation. The finance charge should be $266,463.32 and, for transactions subject to § 1026.18, the total of payments should be $366,463.32.
B. Same loan as above, except with a two-percent rate cap on periodic adjustments. The disclosures should reflect a composite annual percentage rate of 11.53 percent based on 9 percent for the first year, 11 percent for the second year, and 12 percent for the remaining 28 years. Reflecting those three rate levels, the payment schedule disclosed pursuant to § 1026.18(g) should show 12 payments of $804.62, 12 payments of $950.09, and 336 payments of $1,024.34. Similarly, the disclosures required by §§ 1026.18(s), 1026.37(c), 1026.37(l)(1) and (3), 1026.38(c), and 1026.38(o)(5) should reflect the effect of this calculation. The finance charge should be $265,234.76 and, for transactions subject to § 1026.18, the total of payments should be $365,234.76.
C. Same loan as above, except with a 7
vi. A loan in which the initial interest rate is set according to the index or formula used for later adjustments but is not set at the value of the index or formula at consummation is not a discounted variable-rate loan. For example, if a creditor commits to an initial rate based on the formula on a date prior to consummation, but the index has moved during the period between that time and consummation, a creditor should base its disclosures on the initial rate.
11.
i. Renewable balloon-payment instruments where the creditor is both unconditionally obligated to renew the balloon-payment loan at the consumer's option (or is obligated to renew subject to conditions within the consumer's control) and has the option of increasing the interest rate at the time of renewal. Disclosures must be based on the payment amortization (unless the specified term of the obligation with renewals is shorter) and on the rate in effect at the time of consummation of the transaction. (Examples of conditions within a consumer's control include requirements that a consumer be current in payments or continue to reside in the mortgaged property. In contrast, setting a limit on the rate at which the creditor would be obligated to renew or reserving the right to change the credit standards at the time of renewal are examples of conditions outside a consumer's control.) If, however, a creditor is not obligated to renew as described above, disclosures must be based on the term of the balloon-payment loan. Disclosures also must be based on the term of the balloon-payment loan in balloon-payment instruments in which the legal obligation provides that the loan will be renewed by a “refinancing” of the obligation, as that term is defined by § 1026.20(a). If it cannot be determined from the legal obligation that the loan will be renewed by a “refinancing,” disclosures must be based either on the term of the balloon-payment loan or on the payment amortization, depending
ii. “Shared-equity” or “shared-appreciation” mortgages that have a fixed rate of interest and an appreciation share based on the consumer's equity in the mortgaged property. The appreciation share is payable in a lump sum at a specified time. Disclosures must be based on the fixed interest rate. (As discussed in the commentary to § 1026.2, other types of shared-equity arrangements are not considered “credit” and are not subject to Regulation Z.)
iii. Preferred-rate loans where the terms of the legal obligation provide that the initial underlying rate is fixed but will increase upon the occurrence of some event, such as an employee leaving the employ of the creditor, and the note reflects the preferred rate. The disclosures are to be based on the preferred rate.
iv. Graduated-payment mortgages and step-rate transactions without a variable-rate feature are not considered variable-rate transactions.
v. “Price level adjusted mortgages” or other indexed mortgages that have a fixed rate of interest but provide for periodic adjustments to payments and the loan balance to reflect changes in an index measuring prices or inflation. Disclosures are to be based on the fixed interest rate, except as otherwise provided in §§ 1026.18(s), 1026.37, and 1026.38, as applicable.
12.
i. The finance charge includes the amount of negative amortization based on the assumption that the rate in effect at consummation remains unchanged.
ii. The amount financed does not include the amount of negative amortization.
iii. As in any variable-rate transaction, the annual percentage rate is based on the terms in effect at consummation.
iv. The disclosures required by § 1026.18(g) and (s) reflect the amount of any scheduled initial payments followed by an adjusted level of payments based on the initial interest rate. Since some mortgage plans contain limits on the amount of the payment adjustment, the disclosures required by § 1026.18(g) and (s) may require several different levels of payments, even with the assumption that the original interest rate does not increase. For transactions subject to § 1026.19(e) and (f), see § 1026.37(c) and its commentary for a discussion of different rules for graduated payment adjustable rate mortgages.
1.
i. A 36-month auto loan might be consummated on June 8 with payments due on July 1 and the first of each succeeding month. The creditor may base its calculations on a payment schedule that assumes 36 equal intervals and 36 equal installment payments, even though a precise computation would produce slightly different amounts because of the shorter first period.
ii. By contrast, in the same example, if the first payment were not scheduled until August 1, the irregular first period would exceed the limits in § 1026.17(c)(4); the creditor could not use the special rule and could not ignore the extra days in the first period in calculating its disclosures.
1.
i. The credit request is initiated without face-to-face or direct telephone solicitation. (Creditors may, however, use the special rule when credit requests are solicited by mail.)
ii. The creditor has supplied the specified credit information about its credit terms either to the individual consumer or to the public generally. That information may be distributed through advertisements, catalogs, brochures, special mailers, or similar means.
4.
ii.
7.
i. If a creditor uses appendix D and elects pursuant to § 1026.17(c)(6)(ii) to disclose the construction and permanent phases as separate transactions, the construction phase must be disclosed according to the rules in §§ 1026.37(c) and 1026.38(c). Under §§ 1026.37(c) and 1026.38(c), the creditor must disclose the periodic payments during the construction phase in a projected payments table. The provision in appendix D, part I.A.3, which allows the creditor to omit the number and amounts of any interest payments “in disclosing the payment schedule under § 1026.18(g)” does not apply because the transaction is governed by §§ 1026.37(c) and 1026.38(c) rather than § 1026.18(g). The creditor determines the amount of the interest-only payment to be made during the construction phase using the assumption in appendix D, part I.A.1. Also, because the construction phase is being disclosed as a separate transaction and its terms do not repay all principal, the creditor must disclose the construction phase transaction as a product with a balloon payment feature, pursuant to §§ 1026.37(a)(10)(ii)(D) and 1026.38(a)(5)(iii), in addition to reflecting the balloon payment in the projected payments table.
ii. If the creditor elects to disclose the construction and permanent phases as a single transaction, the repayment schedule must be disclosed pursuant to appendix D, part II.C.2. Under appendix D, part II.C.2, the projected payments table must reflect the interest-only payments during the construction phase in a first column, followed by the appropriate column(s) reflecting the amortizing payments for the permanent phase. The creditor determines the amount of the interest-only payment to be made during the construction phase using the assumption in appendix D, part II.A.1.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing this final rule as a technical change to correct regulatory references to FHFA's address and postal zip code.
Effective December 24, 2015. For additional information, see
Crystal Miller,
In January 2012, FHFA moved to a new headquarters building in Southwest Washington, DC. As a result, the addresses for FHFA's former locations in Northwest Washington, DC, included in 12 CFR 1203.29, 1209.15(a), 1263.5(a)(2), and 1264.6(a) are now out-of-date. This final rule amends those regulations to replace the FHFA's former addresses with its current address, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Effective November 1, 2015, all mail addressed to FHFA is being processed through a different mail processing facility. This facility change required that FHFA use a new zip code. As a result, the zip code in the addresses for the FHFA included in 12 CFR 1200.1(b), 1200.2(g), 1202.3(c), 1202.5(a), 1202.9(a), 1204.3(b), 1204.5(b)(2), 1209.102(a)(1), and 1215.7(b) are now out-of-date. This final rule amends those regulations to replace the FHFA's zip code, which changed from 20024 to 20219. The street address of 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC remains the same.
FHFA submitted a change-of-address request to the local United States Post Office to forward mail containing the old zip code; however, mail addressed with the zip code 20024 after November 1, 2015, may result in delayed delivery to all FHFA offices.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
This final rule is effective on December 24, 2015. Pursuant to the APA, a final rule may be effective without 30 days advance publication in the
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
This final rule amends FHFA's address within two regulatory provisions (12 CFR 1263.5(a)(2) and 12 CFR 1264.6(a)) containing currently approved collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Seals and insignia.
Appeals, Confidential Commercial Information, Disclosure, Exemptions, Fees, Final Action, Freedom of Information Act, Judicial review, Records, Requests.
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal access to justice.
Accounting, Amendment, Appeals, Correction, Disclosure, Exemptions, Fees, Records, Requests, Privacy Act, Social Security numbers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Government employees, Records, Subpoenas, Testimony.
Federal home loan banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Supplementary Information and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, FHFA hereby amends subchapters A and D of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 12 U.S.C. 4512, 12 U.S.C. 4526.
Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654; 5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 4526; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235; E.O. 13392, 70 FR 75373-75377, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 216-200.
12 U.S.C. 4526, 5 U.S.C. 504.
5 U.S.C. 552a.
5 U.S.C. 554, 556, 557, and 701
5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 4526.
12 U.S.C. 1422, 1423, 1424, 1426, 1430, 1442, 4511, 4513.
12 U.S.C. 1430b, 4511, 4513 and 4526.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead webs are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD) on aging Model 777 airplanes that have accumulated at least 38,000 total flight cycles. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any crack in the aft webs of the radial lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead, and, if necessary, corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the aft webs of the radial lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, decompression of the cabin, and collapse of the floor structure.
This AD is effective January 28, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 28, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, 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
Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; 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 all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 27116, May 12, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx Express stated:
• All of its Boeing Model 777s would be affected.
• The proposed inspection threshold and intervals would fit into its maintenance schedule.
• The number of man-hours and elapsed time to accomplish the inspections would not impact the overall span-time of its maintenance schedule.
• The proposed inspections do not require any special inspection techniques, training, or tooling.
Boeing requested that the unsafe condition statement in the NPRM (80 FR 27116, May 12, 2015) be revised to specify that the unsafe condition exists on aging airplanes, rather than new airplanes. Boeing stated that its analysis concluded that airplanes would have to accumulate at least 38,000 total flight cycles before the lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead webs would be subject to WFD.
We agree with Boeing's request and have revised the unsafe condition statement in the preamble and regulatory text of this final rule accordingly.
American Airlines (AA) requested that the first action specified in step 3.B.5. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014, be omitted from the requirements of the proposed AD (80 FR 27116, May 12, 2015). The action is to put the airplane back into a serviceable condition. AA stated that this action does not address the unsafe condition addressed by the proposed rule and that most operators would accomplish the proposed AD requirements during a maintenance visit. AA stated that in the context of a maintenance visit, returning the airplane to a serviceable condition immediately after completion of the inspections and any associated corrective actions would not be possible. AA indicated that an operator would wait until all of the maintenance items scheduled for that visit would have been completed before putting the airplane back into a serviceable condition.
We agree with the commenter's statement that this action does not need to be required by this final rule; several other FAA regulations require restoring the airplane to a serviceable condition before further flight. However, the step of returning the airplane to a serviceable condition is not marked required for compliance (“RC”) in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014; therefore, as noted in
Air New Zealand requested clarification regarding the relationship between the NPRM (80 FR 27116, May 12, 2015) and AD 2012-07-06, Amendment 39-17012 (77 FR 21429, April 10, 2012). Specifically, the commenter asked if the NPRM would supersede AD 2012-07-06; if the AMOC approval included in AD 2012-07-06 would be included in the NPRM; and if the proposed inspections in the NPRM should be done in lieu of or in addition to the existing inspections required by AD 2012-07-06.
We agree with the commenter's request for clarification. This is a new AD applicable to all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes and requires repetitive inspections for cracking in the aft webs of the radial lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2012-07-06, Amendment 39-17012 (77 FR 21429, April 10, 2012), is applicable to certain Model 777 airplanes and requires revising the maintenance program to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal structural elements throughout the airplane.
An AMOC for AD 2012-07-06, Amendment 39-17012 (77 FR 21429, April 10, 2012), was issued so operators could use the corresponding compliance times and inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014, for the inspection requirements for the corresponding locations specified in Boeing Model 777 Structural Significant Item 53-80-I13A and paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2012-07-06. The information regarding this AMOC is included in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014. Operators are required to accomplish the requirements in this new AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014. If the actions of this new AD are done, the requirements of AD 2012-07-06 are met only for areas inspected in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014.
Regarding the question about whether the AMOC approval included in AD 2012-07-06, Amendment 39-17012 (77 FR 21429, April 10, 2012), would be included in this AD, paragraph (i) of this AD contains the AMOC approval procedures for this AD. However, because the existing inspections required by AD 2012-07-06 are not sufficient to preclude WFD in this area, we have not included previous AMOCs issued for AD 2012-07-06 as AMOCs for this AD. We have not changed this AD 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:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 27116, May 12, 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 27116, May 12, 2015).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the lap splices in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead for cracking, 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 193 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions 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 28, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead webs are subject to widespread fatigue damage on aging Model 777 airplanes that have accumulated at least 38,000 total flight cycles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the aft webs of the radial lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, decompression of the cabin, and collapse of the floor structure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014, do a medium frequency eddy current inspection for any cracking in the aft webs of the radial lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,400 flight cycles from the previous inspection. If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, do the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014. If a corrective action described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of 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 (j) 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.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (1)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0078, dated December 5, 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 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
This AD becomes effective January 28, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 28, 2016.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-85-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Service Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7301; fax (516) 794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-05, dated January 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
There has been one reported case on the CL-600-2B19 aeroplane of an aft equipment bay fire occurring due to arcing of chafed integrated drive generator (IDG) power cables. Additionally, the hydraulic line support brackets located at the fuselage station (FS) 672 and FS 682 on a CL-600-2B19 aeroplane could result in inadequate clearance between the IDG power cables and hydraulic lines, potentially resulting in chafing of the IDG power cables. Chafed IDG power cables can generate high energy arcing, which can result in an uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.
It was found that a similar configuration exists on models CL-600-2A12 and CL-600-2B16 aeroplanes. Therefore, a similar unsafe condition exists.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the detailed visual inspection and, if required, rectification of the IDG power cables and hydraulic line support bracket.
Required corrective actions include repair or replacement of the IDG power cable if any chafing is found, and replacement of any cracked or broken support bracket. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Bombardier asked that one of the service bulletin references identified in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014) be changed to correct a typographical error. Bombardier Service Bulletin “604-0625,” as identified in the “Relevant Service Information” section, should be identified as Bombardier Service Bulletin “601-0625.”
We agree with the commenter for the reason provided, and we have changed this reference to correctly specify Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625 throughout this final rule.
Bombardier asked that we clarify the language in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, “Credit for Previous Actions.” Bombardier stated that the current language may cause some confusion because the content is not clear.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern, and we provide the following clarification for the credit language used in paragraph (h) of this AD. Paragraph (h) of this AD matches the intent of the last two paragraphs in the “Corrective Actions” section of Canadian AD CF-2014-05, dated January 20, 2014. Both this FAA AD and the Canadian AD give credit for accomplishing Bombardier Service Bulletins 605-24-007, 604-24-026, and 601-0625, all dated September 18, 2012, but only if Service Request for Product Support Action (SRPSA) 27512, SRPSA 30806, SRPSA 32727, SRPSA 32864, or SRPSA 33161 has not been done.
We have included the airplane models identified in the service information in the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section, and paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014), for clarification.
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 (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Bombardier has issued the following service information:
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Revision 01, dated January 13,
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant)); and
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants)).
This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the IDG power cables for chafing, and for any cracked or broken support bracket of the hydraulic line; and corrective actions if necessary. 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 95 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,075, or $85 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair of chafed power cables or cracked or broken support brackets, as 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.
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 28, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, serial numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive.
(2) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive.
(3) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5934 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power.
This AD was prompted by a report of an aft equipment bay fire due to chafing and subsequent arcing of the integrated drive generator (IDG) power cables. Additionally, we have received several reports of broken support brackets of the hydraulic lines. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct broken support brackets of the hydraulic lines, which could result in inadequate clearance between the IDG power cables and hydraulic lines and chafing of the IDG power cables, and consequent high energy arcing and an uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 400 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform a one-time detailed inspection of the IDG power cables for chafing between the cables and the adjacent hydraulic and pneumatic lines, and for any cracked or broken support bracket of the hydraulic lines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. If any chafing of the power cables or any cracked or broken support bracket is found, before further flight, repair or replace, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant)).
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant)).
(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014 (for Model Cl-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants)).
This paragraph provides credit for action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the
(1) The action was performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, all dated September 18, 2012. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) The action specified in Service Request for Product Support Action (SRPSA) 27512, SRPSA 30806, SRPSA 32727, SRPSA 32864, or SRPSA 33161 has not been done.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-05, dated January 20, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014.
(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514 855-7401; 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes; and all Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that a bracket that attaches the cockpit instrument panel to the airplane structure does not sustain the fatigue loads of the design service goal. This AD requires repetitive inspections of that bracket for cracking and to determine if both lugs are fully broken, an inspection for cracking of an adjacent bracket if necessary, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional modification, which terminates the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on a bracket of the cockpit instrument panel, which, combined with failure of the horizontal beam, could lead to collapse of the cockpit panel, and reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective January 28, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 28, 2016.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, 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, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes; and all Model A340-200 and A340-300 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 2014-0127, dated May 15, 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, A330-200 Freighter,
During flight tests, high stress levels have been measured on the bracket No 6 which attaches the cockpit instrument panel to the aeroplane structure, apparently introduced through the nose landing gear due to bumps on the runway. Airbus determined that the bracket does not sustain the fatigue loads during the Design Service Goal (DSG).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, combined with failure of the horizontal beam, could lead to collapse of the cockpit panel, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a program to inspect the condition of the affected cockpit instrument panel bracket No 6, and designed a stronger (reinforced titanium undrilled) bracket. The new bracket can be installed in-service through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-25-3548 or SB A340-25-4354, as applicable to aeroplane type.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the cockpit instrument panel bracket No 6 and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. This [EASA] AD also provides the installation of the stronger bracket as optional terminating action for the repetitive actions required by this [EASA] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR 7989, February 13, 2015) and the FAA's response.
Delta Airlines requested that paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD (80 FR 7989, February 13, 2015) be revised to specify the part numbers of the affected brackets. Delta suggested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to include the part number after the reference to bracket No. 6 (part number (P/N) F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; and P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242). Delta also requested that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD be revised to include the part number after bracket No. 6 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; and P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242) and bracket No. 7 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; and P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242). Delta stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014, specifies to inspect only P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242, and P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242, and identifies only those part numbers as “affected” brackets that are used on both bracket No. 6 and bracket No. 7.
We agree to include the part numbers identified by the commenter in paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD. We have also included the part numbers in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)(i) of this AD. The “Reason/Description/Operational Consequences” section of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014, specifies to inspect P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242, and P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242. Also, the Accomplishment Instructions of that service bulletin specify to replace P/N F2511012820000 or P/N F2511373420000, as applicable. We contacted Airbus for verification that only those part numbers are considered to be “affected” brackets and Airbus confirmed that only those part numbers are affected. The same affected and replacement parts are used on both Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes; and A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes.
A typographical error in paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed AD (80 FR 7989, February 13, 2015) has been corrected in this final rule. Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed AD inadvertently included Model A330-313 airplanes instead of Model A330-343 airplanes. The
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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 7989, February 13, 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 7989, February 13, 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 the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014, which provides procedures for inspection of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3548, dated October 31, 2013, which provides procedures for replacement of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6 with a reinforced titanium bracket.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014, which provides procedures for inspection of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4354, dated October 31, 2013, which provides procedures for replacement of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6 with a reinforced titanium bracket.
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 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $51,680, or $680 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the follow-on repairs specified in this AD.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary replacements will take about 23 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $1,955 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
We estimate that the optional modification will take about 9 work hours and require parts costing $1,770, for a cost of $2,535.
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 28, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers except those on which Airbus Modification 203287 has been embodied in production.
(2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports that a bracket that attaches the cockpit instrument panel to the airplane structure does not sustain the fatigue loads of the design service goal. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on a bracket of the cockpit instrument panel, which, combined with failure of the horizontal beam, could lead to collapse of the cockpit panel, and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of bracket No. 6 (part number (P/N) F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; or P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242) of the cockpit instrument panel for cracking and to determine if both bracket lugs are fully broken, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,600 flight cycles.
(1) Prior to accumulating 17,200 total flight cycles since the airplane's first flight.
(2) Prior to bracket No. 6 of the cockpit instrument panel accumulating 17,200 total flight cycles since installation on an airplane.
(3) Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cracking of bracket No. 6 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; or P/N F2511373420000, Post-modification Number 55128S18242) of the cockpit instrument panel is found, and both bracket lugs are not fully broken: Within 2,600 flight cycles after that inspection, replace bracket No. 6 of the cockpit instrument panel with a serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014; as applicable. Replacement of bracket No. 6 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; or P/N F2511373420000, post-modification Number 55128S18242) of the cockpit instrument panel does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cracking of bracket No. 6 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; or P/N F2511373420000, Post-modification Number 55128S18242) of the cockpit instrument panel is found and both bracket lugs are fully broken: Before further flight, do a detailed inspection of bracket No. 7 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-modification Number 55128S18242; or P/N F2511373420000, Post-modification Number 55128S18242) of the cockpit instrument panel for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014; as applicable.
(i) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, no cracking is found in bracket No. 7 of the cockpit instrument panel: Before further flight, replace bracket No. 6 and bracket No. 7 of the cockpit instrument panel with serviceable parts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014; as applicable. Replacement of bracket No. 6 (P/N F2511012820000, pre-
(ii) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, any cracking is found in bracket No. 7 of the cockpit instrument panel: Although Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014; specify to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specify that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), repair the cracking before further flight using a repair method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Modifying an airplane by replacing bracket No. 6 of the cockpit instrument panel with a new, reinforced bracket, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3548, dated October 31, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4354, dated October 31, 2013; as applicable; terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, dated September 10, 2013.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 01, dated April 24, 2014.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, dated September 10, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0127, dated May 15, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3548, dated October 31, 2013.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4354, dated October 31, 2013.
(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.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-23-03, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2013-23-03 required a detailed inspection of certain attach fittings for a cylindrical defect, and replacement if necessary. For certain airplanes, this new AD requires new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or replacement if necessary. This new AD also limits the compliance time for doing the replacement for certain other airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a machining defect was also found on some of the actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture. This defect could lead to fatigue cracking and subsequent fracture. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD is effective January 28, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 29, 2013 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013).
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
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013). AD 2013-23-03 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 20178, April 15, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing asked that we revise the NPRM (80 FR 20178, April 15, 2015) to specify that no additional action is required for a wall thickness of 0.140 inch or greater with no machining defect present, as also provided in Table 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
We agree with the commenter that no additional action is required for a wall thickness of 0.140 inch or greater with no machining defect present. However, we do not agree with the request to revise the AD because if this condition exists, no action is required by this AD. Only actions that are required to address the identified unsafe condition are specified in this AD. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
Paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80 FR 20178, April 15, 2015) would have affected certain inboard actuator attach fittings that were inspected using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013. United Airlines (UAL) requested that we remove this inspection criterion. UAL noted that there was no requirement to identify the actuators; therefore, operators would not be likely to positively identify them. UAL added that actuators are not likely to be tracked in position, and could have been moved between airplanes as a result of maintenance. UAL also stated that, in general, it would be better if the AD as a whole was worded not to depend on a record of previous inspection accomplishment, but rather on parts identification.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. We realize that paragraph (k) of this AD is predicated on the fact that operators kept records from the inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013. The intent of this AD is to either replace inboard actuator attach fittings having part number (P/N) 65B08564-7, or to inspect P/N 65B08564-7 for cylindrical defects, machining defects, and wall thickness, and accomplish applicable corrective actions. For that reason we have changed the introductory text of paragraph (k) of this AD so that it applies to airplanes on which doing the detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD was done before the effective date of this AD and a cylindrical defect was found but a replacement was not done. We have also revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD to require an ultrasonic inspection to determine the minimum thickness or mechanically determine the minimum thickness and to allow a records review for the inspections. This change ensures all inspections are done on airplanes with P/N 65B08564-7 that did not replace P/N 65B08564-7 after complying with AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013).
To address airplanes on which inboard actuator attach fittings were replaced after complying with paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), we have added new paragraph (m) to this AD, which specifies that for airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done before the effective date of this AD and the inboard actuator attach fitting has been replaced since that inspection, the inspection to determine the part number specified in paragraph (g) of this AD must be done within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, and the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD must be done within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD. We have also added a records review as an option if records are available that can conclusively determine the part number. We
UAL stated that the actions specified in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (80 FR 20178, April 15, 2015) would also depend on the record of findings from inspections made in accordance with AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013). UAL added that there was no AD requirement to record these findings. UAL noted that operators conducted the inspections and took actions that were required. UAL stated that it would be better to call out a new inspection in the AD to determine which condition the actuator is in, and then take action as appropriate.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD to specify that no actuator attach fitting having P/N 65B08564-7 may be installed on any airplane unless the inspection specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done prior to installation and the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD are done within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. We have also added a records review as an option if records are available that can conclusively determine if the actions have been done.
We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD by referring to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change 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 20178, April 15, 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 20178, April 15, 2015).
We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. The service information describes procedures for new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. 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 184 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions 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.
We have 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 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 28, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of the fracture of an inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap. An inspection of the attach fitting revealed that it was incorrectly machined with a cylindrical profile instead of a conical profile, resulting in reduced wall thickness. A machining defect was also found on some actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture at the point where the tapered machining transitioned to the hemispherical machining at the top of the inner surface. This defect could lead to fatigue cracking and subsequent fracture. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), with revised service information. Within 90 days after November 29, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-23-03): Inspect to determine the part number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flaps, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), with revised service information. If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any inboard actuator attach fitting having part number (P/N) 65B08564-7 is found, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection of the inboard actuator attach fitting for a cylindrical defect, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, may be used. For airplanes on which the detailed inspection is done before the effective date of this AD: If any cylindrical defect is found, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do a minimum thickness inspection of the inboard actuator attach fitting to determine minimum wall thickness of the actuator fitting assembly, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013.
(ii) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013.
(2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, may be used.
For airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done on or after the effective date of this AD: If any cylindrical defect is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the actuator attach fitting either by doing an ultrasonic inspection or by mechanically measuring the thickness and do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section to determine if the machining defect is present, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(i) If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(ii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater and the machining defect is present, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) or (i)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(iii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is not present, within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(iv) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is present, before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
If no cylindrical defect is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the actuator attach fitting either by doing an ultrasonic inspection or by mechanically measuring the thickness and do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section to determine if the machining defect is present, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(i) If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747 57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(ii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater and the machining defect is present, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) or (j)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(iii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is not present, within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(iv) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is present, before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014
(2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
For airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done before the effective date of this AD, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD: If any cylindrical defect is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and the replacement of the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap was not done as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section for machining defects and do an ultrasonic inspection to determine the minimum thickness or mechanically determine the minimum thickness, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. A review of airplane maintenance records, if available, is acceptable to determine the wall thickness and to determine if there are machining defects, provided wall thickness and machining defects can be positively determined from the records review.
(i) If any machining defect is found and the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (k)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(ii) If any machining defect is found and the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(iii) If no machining defect is found and the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch: Within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(iv) If a machining defect is or is not found and the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
As of the effective date of this AD, no actuator attach fitting having P/N 65B08564-7 may be installed on any airplane unless the inspection specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done prior to installation and the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD are done within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records, if available, is acceptable to determine if the inspection and applicable actions have been done, provided the inspection and actions can be positively determined from the records review.
For airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done before the effective date of this AD and the inboard actuator attach fitting was replaced since that inspection: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flaps and, for inboard actuator attach fittings having P/N 65B08564-7, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records, if available, is acceptable to determine the part number, provided the part number can be positively determined from the records review.
(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 (o) 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 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. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) If any service information contains steps that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
(5) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace
(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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 28, 2016.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2443, dated September 12, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) 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
(6) 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.
(7) 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
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission” or “CFTC”) is amending Commission Regulation 1.35(a) to: Provide that all records required to be maintained under this regulation must be maintained in a form and manner which permits prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information; clarify that all records, except records of oral and written communications leading to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions, must be kept in a form and manner that allows for identification of a particular transaction; exclude members of designated contract markets (“DCMs”) and of swap execution facilities (“SEFs”) that are not registered or required to register with the Commission (“Unregistered Members”) from the requirements to keep written communications that lead to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions, keep text messages, and keep records in a particular form and manner; and exclude commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”) from the oral recordkeeping requirement (“Final Rule”).
Effective December 24, 2015.
Katherine Driscoll, Associate Chief Counsel, (202) 418-5544,
The Commission amended Regulation 1.35(a) in December 2012 as part of a series of rulemakings intended to integrate certain existing Commission rules more fully with the framework created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act for swap dealers and major swap participants (the “2012 Amendment”).
Regulation 1.35(a) requires each futures commission merchant (“FCM”), retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”), introducing broker (“IB”), and member of a DCM or of a SEF to keep full, complete, and systematic records of all transactions relating to its business of dealing in commodity interest and related cash or forward transactions.
Regulation 1.35(a) requires FCMs, RFEDs, IBs, and members of a DCM or of a SEF to keep records of written communications that lead to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions. Additionally, Regulation 1.35(a) includes a requirement to keep records of certain oral communications, which applies to each FCM, RFED, large IB (defined as an IB that has generated over $5 million in aggregate gross revenues over the preceding three years from its activities as an IB), and member of a DCM or of a SEF that is registered or required to register with the Commission as a floor broker (“FB”) (only with regard to acting as an agent for a non-affiliated client) or as a CTA.
The 2012 Amendment became effective on February 19, 2013.
On November 14, 2014, the Commission published for comment in the
The Commission received 18 comment letters in response to the Proposal. The commenters represented a variety of interests, including eight commercial end-user trade groups, five advisor and broker trade groups, two exchanges, one technology vendor, one mortgage lending association, and one self-regulatory organization.
Regulation 1.35(a) mandates that required records, including records of oral and written communications that lead to the execution of a transaction, be maintained in a form and manner “identifiable and searchable by transaction.”
In considering the Proposed Amendment, the Commission noted that access to searchable pre-trade communications is an important element of its oversight of the derivatives market and enforcement of Commission rules and regulations.
Many commenters generally supported the proposed changes to the form and manner requirements of the
Voitrax, a technology company, did not support the Proposed Amendment, stating that it was developing low-cost technology which would make the rule's existing requirement that records be “identifiable and searchable by transaction” both feasible and cost-effective. Voitrax stated that the Proposed Amendment's standalone requirement that records be searchable (rather than indexed) is not cost-effective, and that “at higher volumes searching becomes infeasible.” Voitrax also noted that it had devoted significant resources to creating software to address the requirements in the 2012 Amendment, and if the Proposed Amendment is finalized, there may be a disincentive for companies to invest in technology solutions related to regulatory requirements in the future.
In the Commission's view, records are “searchable” when they are kept in a form and manner which permits prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information.
The Commission notes that the Final Rule does not require market participants to convert their records to searchable electronic databases. Rather, the Final Rule is deliberately drafted in a way that permits market participants subject to the rule to keep their paper and electronic records in a manner which they deem prudent and appropriate for their particular business. There is no prescribed methodology under Regulation 1.35(a) by which records must be searched or retrieved, so long as those searches yield prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information.
The Commission has carefully considered Voitrax's comment opposing the Proposed Amendment, but disagrees with Voitrax's contention that the requirement that records be searchable is not cost-effective, and is also infeasible at high volumes. As explained above, the Commission notes that the Final Rule does not prescribe any particular methodology or corresponding technology with which records must be searchable; rather, the rule can be satisfied using a variety of approaches with varying costs. The Commission also acknowledges Voitrax's concern that the Commission's changes to an existing rule may create a disincentive for some firms to develop technology to address Commission rules. Any rule amendment may have some effect on market participants, as well as the vendors that support those market participants. In this case, the Commission has tailored the rule to address some concerns that market participants have presented in a manner consistent with the overall purpose of the rule. Although Voitrax disagreed with the Proposed Amendment, the Commission believes that the Final Rule preserves the core market integrity and customer protection aspects of the rule, while reducing certain elements of the recordkeeping obligations imposed by the rule.
Regulation 1.35(a) states that market participants “shall retain the records required to be kept by this section in accordance with the requirements of § 1.31.”
Commenters proposed several solutions to address these perceived inconsistencies. AGA suggested that Regulation 1.35(a) should not contain any form and manner requirements, and that form and manner should be dictated solely by Regulation 1.31. Further, AGA proposed a safe harbor for end-users to rely on the record retention performed by a DCM, SEF, or a CFTC-registered counterparty, with respect to any of the records required under Rules 1.35(a) and 1.31. They proposed that in the absence of a safe harbor, the Commission should add language to the rule stating that it would consider “good faith compliance” with recordkeeping rules as a mitigating factor when exercising its enforcement authority. CMC proposed that members of DCMs or of SEFs that are not fiduciaries should be excluded from the requirement that records required to be maintained pursuant to Regulation 1.35(a) be kept in accordance with Regulation 1.31. MGEX proposed eliminating the “searchable” and “identifiable” requirements from Regulation 1.35(a). As an alternative, they supported keeping the searchable requirement in Regulation 1.35(a) in conjunction with a significant amendment to Regulation 1.31 regarding the storage of electronic communications.
MFA noted that it, along with IAA and the Alternative Investment Management Association (“AIMA”), submitted to the Commission a petition
The Commission is aware that some commenters are concerned with the relationship between the requirements of Regulations 1.35(a) and 1.31. The Commission notes that most of the comments in this area centered on perceived inconsistencies with the requirement in Regulation 1.35(a) that records be searchable. The Commission believes that the clarification of the form and manner requirements of Regulation 1.35(a), as stated above, should allay some commenters' concerns regarding compliance with both rules. Searchable records are indispensable to the Commission's ability to conduct surveillance inquiries and investigations in an efficient and effective manner for the protection of customers and ensuring market integrity. For example, searchable records facilitate the timely pursuit of potential violations, which can be important in seeking to freeze and recover any customer funds received from illegal activity or address market disruptions. As noted above, the Commission reiterates that the Final Rule does not require market participants to convert their records to searchable electronic databases. Rather, this rule was deliberately drafted in a way that permits market participants to maintain their paper and electronic records in a manner which they deem prudent and appropriate for their particular business. There is no prescribed methodology under Regulation 1.35(a) by which records must be searched or retrieved, so long as those searches yield prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information.
Regulation 1.35(a) generally mandates that the market participants subject to its requirements retain records that are transmitted by, among other things, telephone, mobile device, or other digital or electronic media.
As discussed above, Regulation 1.35(a) also requires that all records be kept in a form and manner that is “identifiable and searchable by transaction.”
In response, the Commission received comments from representatives of commercial end-users in the agriculture and energy industry, two exchanges, one advisor trade group, and a mortgage lending association.
Regarding the proposal to exclude Unregistered Members from the requirement to keep text messages, several commenters asked the Commission to clarify the term “text message.”
Given that some Unregistered Members have informed the Commission that they conduct their commodity interest and related cash or forward transactions primarily via text message, it may be unduly burdensome to require them to implement the additional technology to allow these messages to be stored on computers. Registered market participants, on the other hand, tend to rely more heavily on other forms of communication to execute commodity interest transactions and related cash or forward transactions. To the extent these registered market participants choose to avail themselves of the ability to use text messages, they could more easily expand their existing communications retention infrastructure to include text message storage.
Commenters representing commercial end-users also raised issues regarding an element of the existing rule which the Commission had not proposed to change. Specifically, the commenters addressed the requirement that firms maintain records of communications that “lead to” the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions. Several commenters stated that market participants cannot readily identify which communications will “lead to” the execution of transactions in commodity interests and related cash or forward transactions. Market participants therefore may be forced to retain every communication related to their commodity trading business.
The Commission has previously stated that records of communications that lead to the execution of a transaction can serve to protect market participants and promote the integrity of the markets.
In addition to the comments addressed above, nine commenters representing a variety of commercial interests requested that Unregistered Members be excluded from the rule altogether.
As far as Regulation 1.35(a) may present unique issues for Unregistered Members, the Commission is tailoring this Final Rule to accommodate those issues. Specifically, Unregistered Members do not have to keep records of written communications that lead to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions. They do not have to keep text messages and they do not have to maintain records in any particular form and manner. The Commission understands that Unregistered Members may wish to be excluded from Regulation 1.35(a) entirely. The Commission has already determined, however, that Unregistered Members are properly subject to the rule.
Regulation 1.35(a) requires CTAs that are members of a DCM or of a SEF to record all oral communications that lead to the execution of a transaction in a commodity interest.
In response to the Proposed Amendment and its effects on CTAs, the Commission received comments from representatives of five advisor and broker trade groups, one self-regulatory organization, and one exchange.
Commenters also requested that the Commission provide CTAs with additional relief from the requirements of Regulation 1.35(a). IAA and ICI cited the reasons the Commission offered to exclude CTAs and CPOs from oral recordkeeping to argue that asset managers should be excluded from Regulation 1.35(a) entirely. For example, IAA and ICI stated that CTAs and CPOs act on a discretionary basis and have little to no communication with customers regarding orders. They also noted that any discussions CTAs and CPOs may have with market intermediaries regarding orders are captured by those intermediaries, making CTAs' and CPOs' records duplicative. Further, they noted that CTAs and CPOs are already subject to extensive recordkeeping rules under CFTC, SEC and state regulations. SIFMA AMG argued that the relief that the Commission staff provided to Unregistered Members, by excusing them from the requirements to retain text messages and to maintain other required records in a particular form and manner should be expanded to include all asset managers. SIFMA AMG stated that asset managers, including registered CTAs and CPOs, utilize text messages in a similar capacity as Unregistered Members. SIFMA AMG stated that the technology does not exist to maintain text messages pursuant to the rule. SIFMA AMG also argued that the costs associated with these recordkeeping obligations will “almost certainly” reduce the liquidity that asset managers provide to the swap markets. Further, as noted above, SIFMA AMG observed that asset managers are also subject to extensive regulation under other CFTC, SEC and state regulations.
The Commission has carefully considered commenters' requests that, in addition to the proposed relief from oral recordkeeping requirements, the Commission grant CTAs relief from the written recordkeeping requirements of Regulation 1.35(a). The Commission has stated in the past that access to searchable written records is an important tool the Commission needs to ensure market integrity and protect customers.
In response to SIFMA AMG's request to extend the relief granted to Unregistered Members to all asset managers, the Commission notes that asset managers are uniquely situated compared to Unregistered Members, in that asset managers may act as intermediaries.
The final rule text of paragraph (a) of Commission Regulation 1.35 as adopted in this release has been reorganized to provide greater clarity regarding the regulatory obligations of affected Commission registrants and Unregistered Members. To this end, the reorganized rule text defines separate categories of required records and then separately specifies for each type of Commission registrant, and for Unregistered Members, the category or categories of records each is required to keep. For the avoidance of doubt, other than as modified by the amendments to paragraph (a) of Commission Regulation 1.35 that the Commission is adopting in this release, the Commission reiterates that the text of paragraph (a) has only been reorganized; the reorganized rule text is not intended to modify the regulatory obligations of Commission registrants or Unregistered Members under Commission Regulation 1.35(a) in any other respect.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that Federal agencies consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, they must provide a regulatory flexibility analysis respecting the impact.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the rule amendment adopted herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As the Commission stated in the Proposal, this rulemaking does not impose any new recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or other collections of information that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). All recordkeeping or information collection requirements relevant to the subject of this rulemaking, or discussed herein, already exist under current law. The title for this collection of information is “Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps—Records of Transactions,” OMB control number 3038-0090. The Commission invited public comment on the accuracy of its estimate that no additional recordkeeping or information collection requirements or changes to existing collection requirements would result from the Proposed Amendment. The Commission did not receive any comments that addressed whether additional recordkeeping or information collection requirements or changes to existing collection requirements would result from the adoption of the Proposal. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the final rule will reduce the current burden of OMB control number 3038-0090. Accordingly, the Commission will, by separate action, publish in the
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. In adopting the Final Rule, the Commission has considered the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the Section 15(a) factors, and sought comments from interested persons regarding the nature and extent of such costs and benefits.
In summary, as the Commission stated in the 2012 Amendment, the records (as well as the form and manner in which such records must be kept) under Regulation 1.35 are an important component of the Commission's efforts to ensure fair, orderly and efficient markets, and to detect and deter abusive, fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices that can harm market integrity and customers. In furthering the important policy and practical objectives of the rule, the Commission carefully considered the potential impact on the market and market participants. The adoption of the Final Rule reflects the agency's efforts to consider the need to promote market integrity and protect customers, while mitigating potential cost to market participants, and in particular, commercial end-users.
The Commission is amending Regulation 1.35(a) to: (i) Provide that all records that are required to be maintained under this regulation must be maintained in a form and manner which permits prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information; (ii) clarify that the requirement that records be kept in a form and manner identifiable by transaction means that the records must be kept in a form and manner that allows for identification of a particular transaction, except that records of oral and written communications leading to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions are not required to be kept in a form and manner that allows for identification of a particular transaction; (iii) exclude Unregistered Members of DCMs and of SEFs from the requirements to: keep written communications that lead to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions; keep text messages; and keep records in a particular form and manner; and (iv) exclude commodity trading advisors CTAs from the oral recordkeeping requirement. The Commission stated in the Proposal that the baseline for this cost and benefit consideration is the existing Regulation 1.35(a). While CFTC Staff Letters 14-72 and 14-147, as discussed above, currently provide no-action relief that is substantially similar to much of the relief the Final Rule provides to certain Commission registrants and Unregistered Members, the Commission believes that CFTC Staff Letters 14-72 and 14-147 should not set or affect the baseline from which the Commission considered the costs and benefits of the Final Rule. This is because, as they indicate, CFTC Staff Letters 14-72 and 14-147 do not necessarily represent the position or view of the Commission or any other office or division of the Commission.
The Commission invited comments from the public on all aspects of its preliminary consideration of the costs and benefits associated with the Proposal, and the Cost-Benefit Considerations section of the Proposal included specific questions regarding certain aspects of potential costs or potential benefits associated with the Proposal. While those who commented on the Proposal generally did not specifically address the Cost-Benefit Considerations section of the Proposal, certain of the comments raised issues that relate to the Commission's cost-benefit considerations. Accordingly, although the Commission has addressed those comments above in connection with the specific proposed regulatory provision of the Proposal to which they referred, the Commission is also addressing those comments in the discussion that follows.
The Commission stated in the Proposal that it would not impose any new or additional costs directly upon affected market participants, but instead would reduce some of the regulatory burdens and associated costs that Regulation 1.35(a) imposes upon them. The Commission stated that it is difficult to quantify what costs, if any, the Proposed Amendment would impose upon other market participants, the markets themselves, or the general public. The Commission observed, however, that one possible cost associated with the Proposed Amendment would be that certain market participants, such as CTAs that are members of a DCM or of a SEF and Unregistered Members, would no longer be required to keep certain types of records that may be useful for the Commission in exercising its oversight of the markets, including for market surveillance, enforcement, and ensuring market integrity. The Commission invited public comments on the costs of the Proposal.
No commenter attempted to quantify the costs, if any, associated with the Proposal. Two commenters specifically stated that the Proposal would not affect market oversight.
Many commenters argued, however, that the Proposal should have provided additional relief to Unregistered Members, especially those Unregistered Members that are commercial end-users. These commenters argued that this lack of additional relief would cause some end-users to avoid membership on DCMs and SEFs, resulting in increased transaction costs for those entities. These commenters also argued that such additional costs may cause market participants to conduct some swap transactions away from SEFs, which would, in turn, decrease market transparency and the Commission's ability to oversee the markets. As explained above, in adopting the Final Rule that provides additional relief to Unregistered Members, the Commission has attempted to address some of the concerns raised by end-users, which in turn should mitigate the impact of the rule on the broader market.
Finally, Voitrax commented that the Commission's changes to an existing rule may create a disincentive for some firms to develop technology to address Commission rules. Any rule amendment may have some effect on market participants, as well as the vendors that support those market participants. In this case, the Commission has tailored the rule to address some concerns that market participants have presented in a manner consistent with the overall purpose of the rule. However, the Commission believes that the Final Rule preserves the core market integrity and customer protection aspects of the rule, while reducing the recordkeeping obligations imposed by the rule.
The Commission stated in the Proposal that it would have a direct and tangible benefit for those market participants that are excused from certain aspects of the recordkeeping obligations of Regulation 1.35(a). The Commission reduced the burden of Regulation 1.35(a) by excluding CTAs and Unregistered Members from certain aspects of the rule. The Commission replaced the requirement that records be searchable by transaction with the more general requirement that records be searchable. The Commission observed that it may be difficult to quantify what other benefits the Proposal may have for other market participants, the markets themselves, or the general public. The Commission invited public comments on the benefits of the Proposal. In response to those comments, the Commission is further reducing the burden of Regulation 1.35(a) by replacing the term “searchable” that was in the Proposal with the phrase “maintained in a form and manner which permits prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information.” No commenters attempted to quantify the benefits associated with the Proposal. Commenters generally agreed that the Proposal would reduce recordkeeping costs for certain market participants. The Commission believes the benefits associated with the Final Rule, which are difficult to quantify in the aggregate, will be realized in different ways by different market participants affected by the rule depending on the precise nature of their business and the attendant recordkeeping obligations that accompany that business.
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the effects of its actions in light of the following five factors:
The Commission stated in the Proposal that it would reduce some of the regulatory burdens on certain market participants. The Commission recognizes that there may be a trade-off between reducing regulatory burdens and ensuring that the recordkeeping obligations Rule 1.35(a) imposes upon those market participants subject to the rule are sufficient to support the effort by the Commission to fulfill its regulatory mission. As noted above, the Proposal would relieve certain market participants from the requirement under Regulation 1.35(a) to keep certain types of records that can be useful for the Commission in exercising its oversight of the markets, including for market surveillance, enforcement, and ensuring market integrity. The Commission invited public comment on these issues.
No commenter stated that the Proposal would adversely affect the ability of the Commission to provide effective oversight of the markets. Two commenters specifically stated that the Proposal would not affect market oversight.
Some commenters argued that that the Proposal did not go far enough in relieving burdens on commercial end-users, which they argue creates a disincentive to transact on DCMs and SEFs, thereby lowering market transparency. As explained above, in adopting the Final Rule that provides additional relief to Unregistered Members, the Commission has attempted to address some of the concerns raised by end-users, which in turn should mitigate the impact of the rule on the broader market.
The Amendments to Rule 1.35(a) are intended, in part, to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on certain market participants and end-users. The Commission invited public comment on whether the Proposed Amendment, if adopted, would actually decrease these regulatory burdens, and whether the decreased regulatory burdens would result in increased resource-allocation efficiency and competition without compromising market integrity.
Commenters generally stated that the Proposal would decrease the regulatory burdens on affected market participants. No commenters addressed whether the relief provided in the Proposed Amendment would result in increased
The Commission believes that the Final Rule will decrease the regulatory burdens on affected market participants. The Commission believes that this should result in increased resource-allocation efficiency for market participants overall. The Commission believes that the Final Rule should not have any effect on competition. Finally, the Commission believes that the Final Rule will not compromise market integrity. The Final Rule is narrowly tailored to provide relief to certain market participants with respect to certain types of records. This targeted relief does not unduly compromise the recordkeeping requirements of Regulation 1.35(a), the CEA, or other Commission Regulations.
Some commenters stated that the lack of sufficient relief provided in the Proposed Amendment would cause many market participates to avoid utilizing SEFs. Further, one commenter stated that costs associated with these recordkeeping obligations will “almost certainly” reduce the liquidity that asset managers provide to the swap markets. Many commenters agreed that although the Proposal decreased the regulatory burdens on Unregistered Members, it did not go far enough, resulting in decreased resource-allocation efficiency of the markets. As explained above, in adopting the Final Rule that provides additional relief to Unregistered Members, the Commission has attempted to address some of the concerns raised by end-users, which in turn should mitigate the impact of the rule on the broader market.
The Commission stated that the Proposed Amendment would not have any effect on price discovery. The Commission invited public comments regarding what effect, if any, the Proposed Amendment would have on price discovery. Only one commenter addressed price discovery, stating that the Proposal would not have any effect on price discovery.
The Proposal is intended, in part, to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on certain market participants. The Commission invited public comment on whether the Proposed Amendment would have any effect on the risk management practices of market participants and end-users. Commenters agreed that the Proposed Amendment would, if adopted, decrease regulatory burdens on certain market participants. Commenters did not address whether these decreased regulatory burdens would have an effect on market participants' risk management practices. One commenter stated that the Proposed Amendment did not provide sufficient relief to Unregistered Members that are commercial end-users, which they assert perpetuates a disincentive for these firms to transact on SEFs.
The Commission did not identify any other public interest considerations for this rulemaking, nor were any identified by commenters.
Agricultural commodity, Agriculture, Brokers, Committees, Commodity futures, Conflicts of interest, Consumer protection, Definitions, Designated contract markets, Directors, Major swap participants, Minimum financial requirements for intermediaries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swap dealers, Swaps.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 1 as set forth below:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9, 10a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24 (2012).
(a) * * *
(1)
(i) Keep full, complete, and systematic records (including all pertinent data and memoranda) of all transactions relating to its business of dealing in commodity interests and related cash or forward transactions, which shall include all orders (filled, unfilled, or canceled), trading cards, signature cards, street books, journals, ledgers, canceled checks, copies of confirmations, copies of statements of purchase and sale, and all other records, which have been prepared in the course of its business of dealing in commodity interests and related cash or forward transactions (for purposes of this section, all records described in this paragraph (a)(1)(i) are referred to as “
(ii) If such person is a member of a designated contract market or swap execution facility, retain and produce for inspection all documents on which trade information is originally recorded, whether or not such documents must be prepared pursuant to the rules or regulations of either the Commission, the designated contract market or the swap execution facility (for purposes of this section, all records described in this paragraph (a)(1)(ii) are referred to as “
(iii) Keep all oral and written communications provided or received concerning quotes, solicitations, bids, offers, instructions, trading, and prices that lead to the execution of a transaction in a commodity interest and any related cash or forward transactions (but not oral communications that lead solely to the execution of a related cash or forward transaction), whether transmitted by telephone, voicemail, facsimile, instant messaging, chat rooms, electronic mail, mobile device, or other digital or electronic media (for purposes of this section, all communications described in this paragraph (a)(1)(iii) are referred to as “
(2)
(i) All transaction records; and
(ii) All written pre-trade communications.
(3)
(i) All commodity interest and related records; and
(ii) All written pre-trade communications.
(4)
(i) All transaction records;
(ii) All written pre-trade communications; and
(iii) All oral pre-trade communications that lead to the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, security futures product, swap, or commodity option authorized under section 4c of the Commodity Exchange Act for the account of any person other than such floor broker.
(5)
(i) Permits prompt, accurate, and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information; and
(ii) Other than pre-trade communications, allows for identification of a particular transaction.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(ii) A request for an alternative compliance schedule under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section shall be acted upon within 30 days from the time such a request is received, or it shall be deemed approved.
(iii) The Commission hereby delegates to the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority to exercise the discretion. Notwithstanding such delegation, in any case in which a Commission employee delegated authority under this paragraph believes it appropriate, he or she may submit to the Commission for its consideration the question of whether an alternative compliance schedule should be established. The delegation of authority in this paragraph shall not prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority set forth in paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section.
(iv) Relief granted under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section shall not cause an affected entity to be out of compliance or deemed in violation of any recordkeeping requirements.
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Today, the Commission is adopting significant changes to a rule that will reduce recordkeeping obligations for commercial end-users. The changes ensure that the rule strikes an appropriate balance between the costs of recordkeeping and the benefits to market oversight. This will help ensure that businesses as well as farmers and ranchers that depend on the derivatives markets are able to continue using them effectively and efficiently.
Commercial end-users were not the cause of the crisis, and should not bear the burdens of reforms designed to rein in systemic risk. Since I became Chairman, the CFTC has taken a number of actions to fine-tune our rules to ensure they do not impose unintended burdens on those who use the derivatives markets to hedge commercial risk. Today, I'm pleased to support another final rule that makes important strides towards that goal.
This final rule amends recordkeeping requirements set forth under Commission Regulation 1.35. This regulation requires various types of market participants to keep written and oral records of their commodity interest and related cash or forward transactions. It is very important to our efforts to ensure our markets are strong, transparent, and operate free of fraud and manipulation.
This rule was first implemented in 1948. CFTC made changes to this regulation in 2012, to ensure it accurately reflected evolution of the market and changes in the CFTC's jurisdiction. But we have been evaluating the rule since then, and we have determined that for some market participants, the costs of complying with certain aspects of the changes may exceed the potential benefits. Throughout this process, we have benefitted from the input of many commercial businesses and other market participants. We appreciate their feedback.
Today's final rule clarifies that members of exchanges and swap execution facilities not registered with the Commission—typically, end-users—do not have to keep pre-trade communications or text messages. Further, it simplifies the requirements for keeping records of final transactions. The amended rule also states that commodity trading advisors do not have to record oral communications regarding their transactions.
I believe this rule is an important change that will reduce recordkeeping burdens on end-users, and I applaud my fellow commissioners for their unanimous support.
I am pleased to support this final rule that revises Rule 1.35. In the end, after numerous iterations, several comment periods, significant legislative interest from Congress, and months of negotiating, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) thankfully listened to the concerns of market participants. I am appreciative of the CFTC staff's diligent work over the past few months to make key revisions to this rule. Fixing this regulation was one of the first issues that I raised with my fellow Commissioners upon my arrival at the CFTC. I believe we have now produced a more workable rule that will not impose needless regulatory costs on America's agricultural producers, grain elevator operators or energy producers, to name a few.
As background, the Commission revised long-standing Rule 1.35 in 2012 despite the fact that the Dodd-Frank Act
In November 2014, the CFTC did propose changes to Rule 1.35.
Appropriately, the final revisions to Rule 1.35 address many of the issues raised in my year-old dissent. End-user exchange members that are not registered or required to be registered with the Commission now must only keep transaction records, which is a logical and prudent course of regulatory policy. Text messages are also excluded from the recordkeeping requirement for end-users, but communications through internet-based messaging services must be kept on file. I anticipate that this distinction will generate interesting public commentary.
Aside from the technical points of the final rule, it is appropriate to comment on the skyrocketing compliance costs associated with trading in American commodity markets. There is an undeniable need for the CFTC to police these markets and root out fraud and abuse. Confidence and trust in our markets is essential so that farmers, manufacturers and other end-users can safely hedge their risks and costs of production. Yet, agricultural intermediaries, particularly small futures commission merchants, are being squeezed by the prolonged environment of low interest rates and increased regulatory burdens. Regulators must always balance the public's interest in collecting commercial information for use in investigations and enforcement, against costs and burdens placed on American commerce and industry and the jobs they generate. In this protracted period of weak economic growth with an enormous number of Americans out of the workforce, we must scrupulously avoid needless red tape and compliance costs that are invariably passed along through higher costs for everyday items like a loaf of bread or a gallon of gasoline, milk or winter heating oil.
I believe the final Rule 1.35 generally gets the balance right. Yet, I must give a plain and simple warning: The elimination of unnecessary recordkeeping burdens provided in this final rule will be paradoxically tossed aside for many small market participants if Regulation Automated Trading (“Regulation AT”) is finalized as proposed.
As I have mentioned in the past, I have been fortunate during my time as a Commissioner to visit with agricultural and energy producers and intermediaries in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Louisiana and Kentucky. The common refrain I hear again and again is that Washington does not listen to everyday Americans. It imposes rules and regulations without regard to their obvious impact on ordinary people. Well, I believe this rule benefits from listening to those concerns and is a step in the right direction. I am hopeful that it is an indicator of future action by the CFTC that more readily takes to heart these common concerns in all of our regulatory actions.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Final rule; correction.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is correcting a final rule that was published in the
Effective January 6, 2016.
Scott Moore, Financial Operations Analyst, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Financial Policy & Procedures Division, 451 7th Street SW., Room 3210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-2277, or Loyd LaMois, Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Management, 451 7th Street SW., Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-3964. These are not a toll-free numbers. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.
In FR Doc 2015-29692 appearing at page 75931 in the
On page 75940, in the second column, amendatory instruction 98.a., is corrected to read as follows: “a. In paragraph (a)(17)(iii), remove `24 CFR 85.36 and 24 CFR part 84' and add in its place `2 CFR part 200, subpart D'; and”.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
The United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is issuing a final rule amending regulations governing United States savings bonds to address certain state escheat claims.
Effective December 24, 2015.
You can download this final rule at the following Internet address:
Theodore C. Simms II, Senior Counsel, 202-504-3710 or
The United States Department of the Treasury has issued savings bonds since 1935 on the credit of the United States to raise funds for federal programs and operations. Article 8, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Under this grant of power, “the Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to issue savings bonds in such form and under such conditions as he may from time to time prescribe. . . .”
Congress expressly authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish the terms and conditions that govern the savings bond program. 31 U.S.C. 3105(c). Treasury's savings bond regulations implement this authority, setting forth a contract between the United States and savings bond purchasers. This contract gives purchasers confidence that the United States will honor its debts when a purchaser surrenders a savings bond for payment. The contract also protects the public fisc by ensuring that Treasury does not face multiple claims for payment on a single savings bond.
Under Treasury regulations, savings bonds have always been registered securities. The regulations authorize several forms of registration, including registration to individuals who are owners, co-owners, and beneficiaries, as well as to fiduciaries and institutions. See 31 CFR 315.7, 353.7, and 360.6. The regulations also provide that savings bonds are not transferrable and are payable only to the registered owner, except as described in Treasury regulations. See 31 CFR 315.15, 353.15, and 360.15. Detailed regulations describe when payment will be made to a person or entity that is not the registered owner.
To redeem a paper savings bond, the registered owner or a successor specified in the regulations must surrender the physical bond. Although there are exceptions to the requirement that the bond be surrendered, the exceptions are carefully drawn to protect the owner's rights and to protect Treasury against competing claims. For example, if a claimant cannot surrender the bond, the claimant must provide satisfactory evidence of the loss, theft, or destruction of the bond, or a satisfactory explanation of the mutilation or defacement, as well as sufficient information to identify the bond by serial number. See,
Many state escheat laws allow states to take custody of unclaimed or abandoned property. Treasury's savings bond regulations do not explicitly address the topic of abandoned savings bonds, or the effect of custody escheat statutes on the rights of savings bond owners. Treasury has addressed the topic in guidance and in litigation.
In 1952, Treasury issued a bulletin to the Federal Reserve Banks providing guidance on custody escheat claims. The bulletin addressed a state claim to the custody of four savings bonds in the state's possession, which had belonged to a ward of the state who died without heirs.
Treasury addressed a new, broader custody escheat claim in 2004 and 2006,
Several of these states sued Treasury to claim the proceeds of all matured, unredeemed bonds registered to persons with addresses in their states. See
The Third Circuit rejected the states' argument, explaining that the state unclaimed property statutes conflict with federal law in many ways. See
Beginning in 2000, certain states enacted title escheat laws specifically for savings bonds that the states deemed to be “unclaimed” or “abandoned.” Pursuant to these title escheat laws, states have attempted to claim title to bonds in their possession, as well as to a broad class of bonds the states do not possess. Kansas enacted the first statute in 2000. Other states enacted their laws more recently. Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and South Dakota enacted their statutes in 2014. Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, and South Carolina enacted their statutes in 2015.
These title escheat statutes raise similar concerns to the custody escheat statutes that the Third Circuit declared preempted in
Under many of these laws, states may initiate an escheat proceeding to claim any bonds that are presumed abandoned; for bonds that a state does not possess, the state often publishes a statement in local newspapers of its intention to claim title to bonds of a particular description, and requires bond owners to respond to the escheat proceeding in order to protect their ownership of the bonds. Bond owners are not parties to the escheat proceeding, and may never learn that the state is attempting to claim title over their bonds, especially if they live out-of-state. To avoid escheat, savings bond owners would need to monitor state laws, newspapers, and judicial proceedings in states where they may not live in order to protect their rights.
Despite the broad reach of these title escheat statutes, state law can only affect savings bond ownership to the extent allowed by federal regulation. Treasury's savings bond regulations determine ownership, describing in detail the rights of registered owners and their successors, including the right to hold paper bonds indefinitely. States do not have any explicit rights under these federal regulations to obtain title to savings bonds through a state escheat proceeding. To the extent that state escheat statutes purport to convey title to savings bonds in conflict with federal law, the escheat statutes would be preempted. See,
The new title escheat statutes also frustrate the objectives and operations of the federal savings bond program by creating the potential for multiple claims over the same bonds. Under these state statutes, a state may attempt to claim bonds that are still in the possession of registered owners, who can submit them for payment at any time. A state may also attempt to claim bonds that are in the possession of another state, where both states have a claim to title under their own state laws. State laws may define “abandonment” in different ways, with an advantage going to the state that can claim escheat title soonest. The potential for competing claims exposes Treasury to the risk of double-payment and costly litigation, as well as threatens the vested rights of bond owners.
Under the current savings bond regulations, Treasury has informed several states by letter that their title escheat claims will not be honored for bonds they do not possess. Given the recent increase in escheat laws specifically addressing savings bonds, the time is ripe for Treasury to clarify its prior statements on escheat and to describe more formally the criteria Treasury will use to evaluate escheat claims. Through a uniform federal rule governing title escheat claims, Treasury will provide formal notice to all states about the escheat claims it will recognize and how it will protect the rights of bond owners still in possession of their savings bonds.
Treasury voluntarily sought public comment on the proposed rule for 45 days to assist the agency in giving full consideration to the matters discussed in the proposed rule. We received comments on behalf of six state officials and associations:
1. National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators.
2. National Association of State Treasurers.
3. Joint comments from state officials in Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Dakota, Iowa, South Carolina, and Maine.
4. The Treasurer of North Carolina.
5. The Treasurer of Missouri.
6. The State Auditor of Arkansas.
Additionally, the commenters emphasized that state unclaimed property programs will attempt to locate savings bond owners after a state claims title to their bonds. The rigor of state efforts to locate bond owners, however, would be outside federal control. Once in possession of bond proceeds, states have little incentive to locate a bond's former owner, particularly if that owner lives in another state. In addition, states may impose burdensome processes on former owners who seek payment, and may not pay former owners in full. The law in Arkansas, for example, only provides that a state “may” pay a claim from a former bond owner after deducting certain expenses from the payment. Ark. Code Ann. § 18-28-231(g)(2)(A). A person who owns a savings bond expects to be paid in full by the federal government, not by a state that has taken title to the owner's unredeemed bond.
Treasury recognizes that savings bonds can be abandoned, with no one eligible under Treasury regulations to redeem them. States are encouraged to assist in locating the owners of bonds in the states' possession, and through advertising and other methods to persuade their citizens to redeem savings bonds that have matured. These efforts can continue without impairing a bond owner's title and rights under the savings bond contract. The commenters did not offer any evidence, however, to support their claim that matured, unredeemed bonds are necessarily lost or abandoned. Based on its contact with tens of thousands of bond owners, Treasury has learned that many bond owners choose to retain their bonds after maturity for a variety of personal and financial reasons. To protect the rights of these bond owners, Treasury has not made any changes to the proposed regulation in response to this comment.
Treasury has long recognized that savings bonds can be abandoned, particularly in the context of a deceased person without heirs. When no person appears able under Treasury regulations to satisfy the requirements for payment, and the state can establish that a bond has been abandoned, Treasury has allowed a state to escheat the bond and submit it for payment. This does not interfere with any rights protected by the savings bond regulations, because no one else is eligible under the Treasury regulations to receive payment. Treasury has allowed states to redeem bonds belonging to a deceased owner under 31 CFR part 315, subpart L, and bonds in a state's possession when the state can establish that they are abandoned and can satisfy the requirements for a waiver under 31 CFR 315.90.
The definition of abandonment, however, cannot be left entirely to states because of the potential for states to impair the rights of ownership provided by federal law. As the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) explained in a 1989 report, the amounts that the United States owes to owners of matured savings bonds are not considered “unclaimed because these moneys are currently payable to the rightful owners upon presentation of a proper claim and without any time limitation.”
For this reason, Treasury has required more evidence of abandonment than is required under some state laws. While some states presume that a bond is
The proposed rule disallows escheat claims for “unclaimed” bonds that are not in a state's possession in part because states cannot produce sufficient evidence that these bonds are abandoned. States typically have little information about bonds that are not in their possession. In the claims reviewed by Treasury, states could not specify the original or current owner of these bonds, their physical location, or the evidence that bonds have been abandoned by their owner. Instead, states identified these bonds by general description, typically the bond series, the date range when the bonds were issued, and the state recorded in the registration. The states presumed that the bonds were abandoned based on a deadline in state law, a concept that is alien to Treasury's savings bond regulations. In contrast, a state in possession of a bond may be able to show that the bond is abandoned. Often, a state acquires possession of the bond from a bank or other entity, which made unsuccessful efforts to return the bond to its owner. The fact that a state possesses the bond is itself evidence, though not conclusive, that the bond has been abandoned. Such evidence is unavailable when a state does not possess the bonds.
Based on Treasury's review of several claims, a state escheat proceeding produces little or no evidence of actual abandonment for bonds that are not in the state's possession. At the outset, a state will publish a general notice in local newspapers that the state is initiating an escheat proceeding for a class of bonds. These notices are a mere formality. The notice does not list the bond owners' names. Bond owners in possession of their bonds have no reason to search for their bonds in a listing of “unclaimed” property. Bond owners may not reside in the state initiating escheat proceedings or have any connection to that state. In these circumstances, few if any bond owners are likely to see the notice and come forward in time to contest the state's claim to their bonds. When a state court issues an uncontested finding that such bonds are “unclaimed” or “abandoned” under such a statute, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that owners have actually abandoned their claim to the bonds.
Some commenters asserted that states should be allowed under 31 CFR parts 315, 353, and 360, subpart F, to submit evidence that bonds they have escheated have been lost, stolen, or destroyed. Treasury does not accept the commenters' unproven assumption that a bond is necessarily lost, stolen, or destroyed simply because it has not been redeemed by a date specified in a state escheat law. If an unforeseen instance arises in which a state escheats a bond that it cannot surrender for payment, and the state can show particularized evidence about that bond as required in subpart F, Treasury can consider that request under the waiver provisions in 31 CFR 315.90, 353.90, or 360.90. The proposed rule is consistent with the rights of bond owners safeguarded by Treasury's current savings bond regulations. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the rule in response to this comment.
Treasury's statement on escheat in 1952, the earliest cited by commenters, arose in the context of a state seeking custody of bonds in its possession. In that statement, the Secretary of the Treasury addressed a request by the Comptroller of New York to redeem four United States savings bonds that came into the state's possession after the registered owner died as a ward of the state, leaving no heirs. The Secretary informed the Comptroller that Treasury would not redeem the bonds in the state's possession unless the state obtained title to the bonds based on an escheat judgment. The Secretary's 1952 letter did not suggest that a state could demand redemption of U.S. savings bonds that the state did not possess.
The commenters also refer to a statement first posted on Treasury's Web site in 2000, which discusses Treasury's views on escheat claims when a state seeks title to bonds in its possession, and to a 1983 letter that discusses escheat in the context of a state's claim for custody of “abandoned bonds and notes.” The 1983 letter may not concern savings bonds at all, but rather bonds and notes that Treasury has issued under different legal authority. Neither of these statements addresses claims by states to the title of savings bonds that are still in the registered owner's possession.
The commenters also cite to a brief filed by the United States in a case involving state claims to the custody of savings bonds. This brief, opposing certiorari in the Supreme Court, does not advance a new position on escheat. Rather, it explains Treasury's longstanding view that states cannot escheat savings bonds under custody escheat statutes. In a background section, the brief summarizes the views expressed in the 1952 bulletin, the 1983 letter, and the notice on Treasury's Web site, and notes the general proposition that a state cannot receive payment without completing an escheat proceeding that satisfies due process and that awards title to the bond to the state. The litigation did not concern, and the Solicitor General did not address, the full criteria that Treasury would apply under a title escheat statute when a state seeks to redeem savings bonds that it does not possess.
The commenters did not mention the letters that Treasury sent to states in 2004 and 2006 addressing the states' demand that Treasury pay them the proceeds of all matured, unredeemed savings held by residents of those states. Three commenters on the proposed rule, North Carolina, South Dakota and Kentucky, were recipients of these letters. As noted earlier, Treasury's 2004 and 2006 letters rejected the states' claims to bonds they did not possess. The letters specifically informed the states that they must obtain title to the bonds and then apply to Treasury for payment under existing procedures. These procedures require claimants to surrender the physical bond or provide
The proposed rule does not conflict with the statements cited by commenters or with Treasury's 2004 and 2006 letters. The proposed rule permits states to escheat savings bonds in their possession when they meet specified criteria. It also permits states to escheat the savings bonds of owners who die without successors named in the regulations, when the states meet the requirements that apply to all claimants from deceased owners, co-owners, and beneficiaries. The proposed rule does not permit states to escheat bonds that they do not possess, a position that is consistent with letters sent to states in 2004 and 2006, and more recent letters sent to Kansas and other states.
The proposed rule is also consistent with Treasury's longstanding view that a bond owner can redeem matured bonds in the owner's possession at any time. It does not conflict with the statements cited by commenters, because those statements did not specifically address a title escheat claim for bonds that are not in a state's possession. To the extent the statements cited by commenters require interpretation, this preamble and the final rule clarify that Treasury will not recognize
The statements on escheat cited by commenters also did not excuse states from satisfying Treasury's payment requirements. Generally, Treasury regulations require a claimant seeking payment to surrender the bond. See,
The commenters seem to prefer that Treasury consider their escheat claims under 31 CFR parts 315, 353, or 360 subpart E (depending on the bond series), instead of the waiver provisions in sections 315.90, 353.90, or 360.90. Treasury has considered the commenters' arguments carefully. Subpart E provides in part that Treasury “will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings, but only as specifically provided in this subpart.” See,
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule and other public documents, Treasury interprets subpart E to apply only to the adverse proceedings specifically listed there. Escheat proceedings are not among the listed proceedings, and because they are
But even when subpart E does apply, it only applies to “valid” judicial proceedings. Treasury has never maintained that it would recognize
To the extent there is any ambiguity about the scope of “valid” proceedings under subpart E, the final rule has been amended to make clear that Treasury may review judicial proceedings to determine whether they provided due process, complied with the savings bond regulations, and complied with relevant state law. No other changes have been made to the proposed rule in response to this comment.
The rule does not alter the United States' obligation to redeem savings bonds in accordance with the savings bond regulations. Current bond owners may continue to surrender their matured, unredeemed bonds to Treasury for payment, as many people do every year. Because the rule protects the existing rights of bond owners under the savings bond contract, its effect on the economy does not meet the threshold test for a major rule.
The commenter did not offer evidence that the proposed rule will cause a major increase in costs or prices for state unclaimed property programs. When a state seeks to escheat bonds in a state's possession, Treasury's rule would require states to show that bonds are actually abandoned and that the state escheat proceeding provided due process and was consistent with federal and state law. Treasury does not expect that this requirement will impose major, new costs on states.
No changes have been made in the proposed rule in response to this comment.
The final rule describes when Treasury will recognize an escheat judgment vesting title in the state to abandoned savings bonds. For bonds in the state's possession, the final rule requires a state to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to provide actual and constructive notice of the state escheat proceeding to all persons listed on the face of the bond and all persons who may have an interest in the bond. The state must also demonstrate that those persons had an opportunity to be heard before the escheat judgment was entered. The steps normally required in a state escheat proceeding may be adequate to establish abandonment, but Treasury is not bound by these proceedings. Because state escheat rules may vary and state escheat proceedings are often uncontested, Treasury reserves the right to require additional evidence of abandonment. Existing regulations already allow Treasury to require a bond of indemnity, with or without surety, in any case for the protection of the United States' interests. See 31 CFR 315.91, 353.91, and 360.91. These regulations remain in effect.
The final regulation also makes explicit that Treasury will not recognize escheat judgments that convey custody, but not title, to a state. This principle is well established in Federal case law and has been incorporated into the final regulation.
Treasury's decision to recognize escheat judgments for bonds in a state's possession will be a discretionary matter, because the breadth of state escheat laws is not within Treasury's control. In exercising discretion, Treasury will consider whether a state's escheat claim impairs any existing rights under Treasury regulations and will assess the risk to Treasury of duplicative payment claims. Requiring states to possess the bonds that they seek to redeem protects these interests, and enables Treasury to locate records of the bonds for which the state seeks payment. Treasury will also assess whether the state has followed its own escheat rules, to ensure (for example) that a state judgment only covers bonds that were eligible for escheat.
The final rule on escheat claims to unclaimed property does not apply when a state claims title to a definitive savings bond as the heir to a deceased owner. Treasury has long recognized circumstances in which a state may obtain title to a savings bond by escheat when the bond owner has died. These escheat claims will be considered under existing savings bond regulations that pertain to the estates of deceased owners, co-owners, and beneficiaries. See 31 CFR part 315, subpart L; part 353, subpart L; and part 360, subpart K.
The final rule does reflect one change in the proposed rule. The final rule provides additional information about how Treasury will assess whether a state proceeding is “valid” under 31 CFR 315.20, 353.20, and 360.20. Under the final rule, Treasury may require any evidence to establish the validity of judicial proceedings, such as evidence that the proceeding provided due process, complied with this Part, and complied with relevant state law.
Because this rule relates to United States securities, which are contracts between Treasury and the owner of the security, this rulemaking falls within the contract exception to the APA at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Treasury, however, voluntarily sought public comment to assist the agency in giving full consideration to the matters discussed in the proposed rule. Treasury fully considered and responded to those comments in the preamble to this final rule.
This rule is not a major rule pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
We ask for no collections of information in this final rule. Therefore, the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
Government securities, Savings bonds.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, 31 CFR parts 315, 353, and 360 are amended to read as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3105 and 5 U.S.C. 301.
(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 315.23 specifies evidence required to establish the validity of judicial proceedings. Treasury may require any other evidence to establish the validity of judicial proceedings, such as evidence that the proceeding provided due process, complied with this part, and complied with relevant state law.
(a)
(b)
(c)
5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 3105, 3125.
(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 353.23 specifies evidence required to establish the validity of judicial proceedings. Treasury may require any other evidence to establish the validity of judicial proceedings, such as evidence that the proceeding provided due process, complied with this part, and complied with relevant state law.
(a)
(b)
(c)
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3105 and 3125.
(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 360.23 specifies evidence required to establish the validity of judicial proceedings. Treasury may require any other evidence to establish the validity of judicial proceedings, such as evidence that the proceeding provided due process, complied with this part, and complied with relevant state law.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad Bridge across Arthur Kill, mile 11.6, between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to facilitate scheduled maintenance. This deviation is necessary to facilitate tie and miter rail replacement on the lift span.
This deviation is effective from 8:21 a.m. on January 9, 2016 to 6:45 p.m. January 31, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1082] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, email
The AK Railroad Bridge, across Arthur Kill, mile 11.6, between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 31 feet at Mean High Water and 35 feet at Mean Low Water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.702.
The waterway supports both commercial and recreational navigation of various vessel sizes. The operator of the bridge, Conrail, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled maintenance and to replace the tie and miter rail on the bridge. The bridge must remain in the closed position to perform this maintenance.
Under this temporary deviation, the draw may remain in the closed position as follows:
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic. The bridge can be opened in an emergency. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Blynman (SR127) Bridge across the Annisquam River and Blynman Canal at mile 0.0 at Gloucester, MA. The deviation is necessary due to the inhabitability of the operator's house associated with a settling of the adjacent seawall resulting in a partial collapse of the house rendering the structure unsafe for occupancy. This deviation allows the bridge to be opened with a two hour advanced notice during the hours of 8 p.m. through 4 a.m. from January 1, 2016 through April 30, 2016.
This deviation is effective from 8 p.m. on January 1, 2016 through 4 a.m. April 30, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-USCG-2015-1057] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Scott White, First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8364, email
The Blynman (SR 127) Bridge across the Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8.2 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.586.
The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to open on signal after at least a two hour advance notice is provided between the hours of 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. for the period of January 1, 2016 through April 30, 2016.
The waterways are transited primarily by seasonal recreation vessels of various sizes. Historical records indicate infrequent requests for openings occur during this timeframe. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies however the northern entrance to the Annisquam River can be used as an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in closed positions. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issues a final rule to incorporate classification changes adopted by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Agreement). These changes are effective January 1, 2016, and are listed in the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (10th ed., ver. 2016), which is published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In addition, the USPTO is making a change that appeared in an earlier revision of the Nice Agreement and minor revisions to punctuation and grammar to conform to what appears in the Nice Agreement.
This rule is effective on January 1, 2016.
Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, at (571) 272-8946 or
The Nice Agreement is a multilateral treaty, administered by WIPO, that establishes the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of registering trademarks and service marks. As of September 1, 1973, this international classification system is the controlling system used by the United States, and it applies to all applications filed on or after September 1, 1973, and their resulting registrations, for all statutory purposes. See 37 CFR 2.85(a). As of January 1, 2015, eighty-four states are parties to the Nice Agreement. Every signatory to the Nice Agreement must utilize the international classification system.
Each state party to the Nice Agreement is represented in the Committee of Experts of the Nice Union (Committee of Experts), which meets annually to vote on proposed changes to the Nice Classification. Any state that is a party to the Nice Agreement may submit proposals for consideration by the other members in accordance with agreed-upon rules of procedure. Proposals are currently submitted on an annual basis to an electronic forum on
In 2013, the Committee of Experts began annual revisions to the Nice Classification. The annual revisions, which are published electronically and enter into force on January 1 each year, are referred to as versions and identified by edition number and year of the effective date (
The annual revisions contained in this final rule, which consist of modifications to the class headings, have been incorporated into the Nice Agreement by the Committee of Experts. As a signatory to the Nice Agreement, the United States adopts these revisions pursuant to Article 1.
The Office is revising § 6.1 as follows:
The wording “metals in foil and powder form for painters, decorators, printers and artists” in Class 2 is amended to “metals in foil and powder form for use in painting, decorating, printing and art.”
The wording “Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations” in Class 5 is amended to “Pharmaceuticals, medical and veterinary preparations.”
The wording “goods of common metal not included in other classes” in Class 6 is deleted.
The comma after “apparatus and instruments” in Class 10 is changed to a semicolon.
The wording “and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes” in Class 14 is deleted.
The wording “Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes” in Class 16 is amended to “Paper and cardboard.” The wording “(not included in other classes)” is deleted from the phrase “plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes).”
The wording “Rubber, gutta-percha, gum, asbestos, mica and goods made from these materials and not included in other classes” in Class 17 is amended to “Unprocessed and semi-processed rubber, gutta-percha, gum, asbestos, mica and substitutes for all these materials.”
The wording “and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes” is deleted from the phrase “Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes” in Class 18.
The wording “goods (not included in other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials, or of plastics” in Class 20 is amended to “unworked or semi-worked bone, horn, ivory, whalebone or mother-of-pearl; shells; meerschaum; yellow amber.”
The wording “not included in other classes” is deleted from the phrase “glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in other classes” in Class 21.
The wording “Ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags (not included in other classes);” in Class 22 is amended to “Ropes and string; nets; tents, awnings and tarpaulins; sails;” and the wording “paper, cardboard,” is added before the term “rubber” in the phrase “padding and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics).”
The wording “Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes” is replaced with “Textiles and substitutes for textiles” in Class 24.
The wording “not included in other classes” is deleted from the phrase “gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes” in Class 28.
The term “pastry” is amended to “pastries” in Class 30. The term “edible” is inserted before the term “ices.”
The wording “Grains and agricultural, horticultural and forestry products not included in other classes” and “seeds” in Class 31 is amended to “Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products; raw and unprocessed grains and seeds.”
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law.
Administrative practice and procedure, Classification, Trademarks.
For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1112, 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the USPTO is amending part 6 of title 37 as follows:
Secs. 30, 41, 60 Stat. 436, 440; 15 U.S.C. 1112, 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.
1. Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed artificial resins, unprocessed plastics; manures; fire extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs; tanning substances; adhesives used in industry.
2. Paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants; raw natural resins; metals in foil and powder form for use in painting, decorating, printing and art.
3. Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices.
4. Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing, wetting and binding compositions; fuels (including motor spirit) and illuminants; candles and wicks for lighting.
5. Pharmaceuticals, medical and veterinary preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes; dietetic food and substances adapted for medical use or veterinary use, food for babies; dietary supplements for humans and animals; plasters, materials for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.
6. Common metals and their alloys; metal building materials; transportable buildings of metal; materials of metal for railway tracks; non-electric cables and wires of common metal; ironmongery, small items of metal hardware; pipes and tubes of metal; safes; ores.
7. Machines and machine tools; motors and engines (except for land vehicles); machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs; automatic vending machines.
8. Hand tools and implements (hand-operated); cutlery; side arms; razors.
9. Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; compact discs, DVDs and other digital recording media; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment, computers; computer software; fire-extinguishing apparatus.
10. Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments; artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; orthopedic articles; suture materials.
11. Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply and sanitary purposes.
12. Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water.
13. Firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks.
14. Precious metals and their alloys; jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments.
15. Musical instruments.
16. Paper and cardboard; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paintbrushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging; printers' type; printing blocks.
17. Unprocessed and semi-processed rubber, gutta-percha, gum, asbestos, mica and substitutes for all these materials; plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture; packing, stopping and insulating materials; flexible pipes, not of metal.
18. Leather and imitations of leather; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas and parasols; walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery.
19. Building materials (non-metallic); non-metallic rigid pipes for building; asphalt, pitch and bitumen; non-
20. Furniture, mirrors, picture frames; unworked or semi-worked bone, horn, ivory, whalebone or mother-of-pearl; shells; meerschaum; yellow amber.
21. Household or kitchen utensils and containers; combs and sponges; brushes (except paintbrushes); brush-making materials; articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool; unworked or semi-worked glass (except glass used in building); glassware, porcelain and earthenware.
22. Ropes and string; nets; tents, awnings and tarpaulins; sails; sacks; padding and stuffing materials (except of paper, cardboard, rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials.
23. Yarns and threads, for textile use.
24. Textiles and substitutes for textiles; bed covers; table covers.
25. Clothing, footwear, headgear.
26. Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles; artificial flowers.
27. Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other materials for covering existing floors; wall hangings (non-textile).
28. Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles; decorations for Christmas trees.
29. Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs; milk and milk products; edible oils and fats.
30. Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastries and confectionery; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.
31. Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products; raw and unprocessed grains and seeds; fresh fruits and vegetables; natural plants and flowers; live animals; foodstuffs for animals; malt.
32. Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit beverages and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages.
33. Alcoholic beverages (except beers).
34. Tobacco; smokers' articles; matches.
35. Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions.
36. Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs.
37. Building construction; repair; installation services.
38. Telecommunications.
39. Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement.
40. Treatment of materials.
41. Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
42. Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.
43. Services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation.
44. Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; agriculture, horticulture and forestry services.
45. Legal services; security services for the protection of property and individuals; personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of propiconazole in or on tea. The Tea Association of the U.S.A., Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective December 24, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 22, 2016. Addresses for
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for propiconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propiconazole follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The primary target organ for propiconazole toxicity in animals is the liver. Increased liver weights were seen in mice after subchronic or chronic oral exposures to propiconazole. Liver lesions such as vacuolation of hepatocytes, ballooned liver cells, foci of enlarged hepatocytes, hypertrophy, and necrosis are characteristic of propiconazole toxicity in rats and mice. Decreased body weight gain was also seen in subchronic, chronic, developmental and reproductive studies in animal studies. Dogs appeared to be more sensitive to the localized toxicity of propiconazole as manifested by stomach irritations at 6 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) and above.
In rabbits, developmental toxicity occurred at a higher dose than the maternally toxic dose, while in rats, developmental toxicity occurred at lower doses than maternal toxic doses. Increased incidences of rudimentary ribs occurred in rat and rabbit fetuses. Increased cleft palate malformations were noted in two studies in rats. In one published study in rats, developmental effects (malformations of the lung and kidneys, incomplete ossification of the skull, caudal vertebrae and digits, extra rib (14th rib), and missing sternbrae) were reported at doses that were not maternally toxic. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity occurred at a higher dose than the parental toxic dose suggesting lower susceptibility of the offspring to the toxic doses of propiconazole.
The acute neurotoxicity study produced severe clinical signs of toxicity (decreased activity, cold, pale, decreased motor activity, etc.) in rats at the high dose of 300 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). Limited clinical signs (piloerection, diarrhea, tip toe gait) were observed in the mid-dose animals (100 mg/kg), while no treatment related signs were observed at 30 mg/kg. The current acute dietary assessment for the general population is based on the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg from the acute neurotoxicity study. A subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats did not produce neurotoxic signs at the highest dose tested that was associated with decreased body weight.
Propiconazole was negative for mutagenicity in the
Propiconazole was carcinogenic to male mice but was not carcinogenic to rats or to female mice. The Agency classified propiconazole as a possible human carcinogen and recommended that, for the purpose of risk characterization, the reference dose (RfD) approach be used for quantification of human risk. Propiconazole is not genotoxic and this fact, together with special mechanistic studies, indicates that propiconazole is a threshold carcinogen. Propiconazole
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by propiconazole as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for propiconazole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
The Agency does not expect any additional residues of propiconazole in drinking water as a result of the imported tea use. Therefore, the Agency is relying on the previous drinking water assessment for assessing propiconazole tolerances. The previously assessed turf EDWCs are approximately one order of magnitude higher and more protective than the EDWCs for the new use.
Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and Pesticide Root Zone Model—Ground Water (PRZM-GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of propiconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 37.9 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 18.6 ppb for surface water and 35.1 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 37.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 35.1 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Although there are no proposed residential uses associated with the imported tea use, propiconazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf, landscapes, ornamentals, and in paint. The highest incidental oral and dermal exposure scenarios are expected from residential use on turf. EPA assessed short-term risk to toddlers from incidental oral and dermal exposure as well as from post-application dermal exposure. The highest post application exposure from residential use on turf was used to assess risk to short-term aggregate exposures.
The only residential use scenario that will result in potential intermediate-term exposure to propiconazole is wood treatment, which the Agency assumes may result in dermal and incidental oral post-application exposures to children. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
Propiconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events (EPA, 2002). In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse rand of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes.
Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Propiconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including propiconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (
An updated aggregate human health risk assessment for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was completed on April 9, 2015, in association with the registration requests for several triazole fungicides (propiconazole, difenoconazole, and flutriafol). That analysis concluded that risk estimates were below the Agency's level of concern for all population groups. This assessment may be found on
1.
2.
Although there was quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of the young following exposure to propiconazole in the developmental rat study, the Agency determined there is a low degree of concern for this finding and no residual uncertainties because the increased susceptibility was based on minimal toxicity at high doses of administration, clear NOAELs and LOAELs have been identified for all effects of concern, and a clear dose-response has been well defined.
3.
i. The toxicity database for propiconazole is complete.
ii. Other than the mild effects seen at 300 mg/kg in the acute neurotoxicity study, neurotoxicity and neurobehavioral effects were not seen in the propiconazole toxicity database. The liver, not the nervous system, is the primary target organ of propiconazole toxicity.
iii. Although an apparent increased quantitative susceptibility was observed in fetuses and offspring, for reasons noted in this Unit, residual uncertainties or concerns for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity are minimal.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, while the chronic used a combination of tolerance-level residues and reliable data on average field trial residues and 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to propiconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. A turf transferable residue study is unavailable but being requested from the registrant for registration review of propiconazole. In all probability this
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs from post-application activities (the highest exposure scenario) of 200 for adults and 96 for children 1-2 years old. This assessment is considered conservative since the short-term endpoints are based on a conservative LOAEL that is 3x higher than the NOAEL. Therefore, the true NOAEL is likely higher and would result in MOEs greater than 100. Further, the assessment is based on a combination of tolerance-level residues and reliable data on average field-trial residues and 100 PCT, conservative assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling, and conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. Additionally, the assessment could be further refined by using PCT estimates and anticipated residues for all crops. Although dietary (food and water) is not the aggregate exposure driver, incorporating PCT would likely increase the aggregate MOE further above 100. For example, the Agency's latest PCT figures indicate that the highest average PCT reported for propiconazole residues on crops is 55%, which is much less than the 100 PCT the Agency used for all commodities in its assessment. Accordingly, even though this MOE for children 1-2 years old is slightly below the target MOE of 100, the difference is small and is more than offset by the conservative exposure assumptions and therefore not of concern.
4.
Propiconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to propiconazole.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for propiconazole is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection method (HPLC/UV Method AG-671A) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established an MRL for propiconazole on tea.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of propiconazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on tea at 4.0 ppm. As there are currently no U.S. registrations for propiconazole for use on tea, EPA is adding a footnote to the regulation to clarify that fact.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The amendments read as follows:
(a)
(2) Tolerances are established for propiconazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on the commodity.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of spinetoram in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes a number of existing tolerances for residues of spinetoram that are superseded by this action. Interregional Research Project # 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective December 24, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 22, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has made certain modifications to petitioned-for actions. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”A24DE0.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Spinetoram and spinosad are considered by EPA to be toxicologically identical for human health risk assessment based on their very similar chemical structures and similarity of the toxicological databases for currently available studies. The primary toxic effect observed from exposure to spinosad or spinetoram was histopathological changes in multiple organs (specific target organs were not identified). Vacuolization of cells and/or macrophages was the most common histopathological finding noted across both toxicological databases with the dog being the most sensitive species. In addition to the numerous organs observed with histopathological changes, anemia was noted in several studies.
There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility from spinosad or spinetoram exposure. In developmental studies, no maternal or developmental effects were seen in rats or rabbits. In the rat reproduction toxicity studies, offspring toxicity was seen in the presence of parental toxicity at approximately the same dose for both chemicals (75-100 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). Parental toxicity was evidenced by increased organ weights, mortality, and histopathological findings in several organs. Offspring effects included decreased litter size, survival, and body weights with spinosad while an increased incidence of late resorptions and post-implantation loss was seen with spinetoram. Dystocia and/or other parturition abnormalities were observed with both chemicals.
Spinosad and spinetoram are classified as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. Neither chemical is an eye or dermal irritant. Spinetoram was found to be a dermal sensitizer. No hazard was identified for dermal exposure; therefore a quantitative dermal assessment is not needed. In acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity from exposure to spinosad or spinetoram. In an immunotoxicity study with spinosad, systemic effects (decreased body weights, increased liver weights, and abnormal hematology results) were seen at the highest dose tested (141 mg/kg/day); however, there was no evidence of immunotoxicity.
Spinosad and spinetoram are classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats and negative findings in mutagenicity assays.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by spinetoram and spinosad as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOEAL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
Spinosad and spinetoram should be considered toxicologically identical in the same manner that metabolites are generally considered toxicologically identical to the parent. Although, as stated above, the doses and endpoints for spinosad and spinetoram are similar, they are not identical due to variations in dosing levels used in the spinetoram and spinosad toxicological studies. EPA compared the spinosad and spinetoram doses and endpoints for each exposure scenario and selected the lower of the two doses for use in human risk assessment.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spinosad/spinetoram used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for spinetoram or spinosad; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii.
In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment for spinetoram, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model—Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEMFCID, ver. 3.16) which incorporates food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). The chronic analysis assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), average field-trial residues or tolerance-level residues for crop commodities, average residues from the livestock feeding studies, experimental processing factors when available, and modeled drinking water estimates.
iii.
iv.
Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of spinetoram for acute
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 21.7 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
Spinetoram and spinosad are currently registered for uses that could result in residential exposures including lawns, gardens, turfgrass, ornamentals, fire ant mounds, and spot-on pet applications. There is potential for residential handler and postapplication exposures to both spinosad and spinetoram. Since spinosad and spinetoram control the same pests, EPA concludes that these products will not be used for the same uses in combination with each other and thus combining spinosad and spinetoram residential exposures would overstate exposure. EPA assessed residential exposure for both spinosad and spinetoram using the most conservative residential exposure scenarios for either chemical.
EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handler (short-term inhalation exposures) and post-application (short-term incidental oral) exposures are expected as a result of the following registered uses: (1) Application of spinosad to gardens, turfgrass, ornamentals and fire ant mounds; (2) application of spinetoram to lawns, gardens, and ornamentals; and (3) spot-on application of spinetoram to cats and kittens. The Agency determined the “worst-case” scenarios for handler and post-application exposures as: (1) Adult residential handler inhalation exposure from mixing/loading/applying liquid formulations to turf via backpack sprayer, and (2) child (1-<2 years) residential post-application incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) exposure from liquid formulation on turf/home gardens/ornamentals. These worst-case exposure estimates were used in the aggregate assessment of residential exposure to spinosad and spinetoram.
Aggregating exposure resulting from the turf and pet uses was not conducted as the products control different pests and, therefore, application on the same day is unlikely. Use survey data indicate that concurrent use of separate pesticide products that contain the same active ingredient to treat the same or different pests does not typically occur. Furthermore, a number of issues are considered when combining residential exposure scenarios, including whether aggregating additional uses is appropriate in light of the already conservative assumptions inherent in the assessment. When assessing individual short-term residential postapplication exposure scenarios, EPA assumes exposure occurs to zero-day residues (
Current EPA policy requires assessment for residential post-application exposures of short- (1 to 30 days), intermediate- (1 to 6 months), and long-term (greater than 6 months) exposures from spot-on products due to the preventative nature of these products and the potential for extended usage in more temperate parts of the country. However, for spinetoram, there is no progression of toxicity with time; therefore, the short-term assessment is protective of intermediate- and long-term exposure.
Available turf transferable residue (TTR) data on spinosad in support of turf uses and spinetoram data on dislodgeable residues from petting after topical administration to cats were incorporated into the exposure assessment. Spinosad and spinetoram dislodgeable-foliar residue (DFR) studies are unnecessary at this time as there is no hazard via the dermal route of exposure.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found spinosad or spinetoram to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and neither spinosad nor spinetoram appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that spinosad and spinetoram do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
i. The toxicity database for spinetoram and spinosad is complete. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity from spinetoram or spinosad exposure. Therefore, no additional database uncertainty factor (UF) is needed.
ii. There is no indication of spinetoram or spinosad neurotoxicity from available acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study.
iii. There is no evidence that spinetoram or spinosad results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the spinetoram and spinosad exposure databases. The dietary exposure assessment is conservative as it assumes 100 PCT and residue estimates are based on field trial data. Moreover, EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to spinetoram and spinosad in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by spinetoram and spinosad.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 220 for children and 1,000 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for spinetoram and spinosad is a MOE of < 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term and long-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs that will not fall below the short-term aggregate MOEs since there is no progression of spinetoram toxicity with time. Because EPA's level of concern for spinetoram and spinosad is a MOE of < 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
Method GRM 05.04 is a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS method which has been determined to be adequate for enforcement of existing spinetoram plant tolerances. The method has been validated on a wide-variety of crops and EPA concluded that it is sufficient to enforce the tolerances established by this action.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
Codex MRLs for spinetoram are currently established in or on several of the relevant crops or crop groups or subgroups affected by this action. EPA harmonizes with existing Codex MRLs whenever feasible. The recommended fruit, stone, group 12-12 tolerance and the Codex MRL are harmonized. But harmonization with the currently established Codex MRLs is inappropriate for the following crop groups and subgroups as harmonization may result in exceedances of the tolerances when the pesticide is applied using the labeled instructions: Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; nut, tree, group 14-12; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10. Also, EPA is not harmonizing the U.S. tolerance for onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A (0.10 ppm)
One comments was received from the Center for Biological Diversity and concerned endangered species; specifically stating that EPA cannot approve these new uses prior to completion of consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“the Services”). This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the spinetoram tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on the potential harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the environment.
EPA made corrections to several commodity definitions to conform to current Agency practices and revised certain proposed tolerance levels based on the available field trial data, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures and/or for purposes of harmonization, including the following: (1) Proposed tolerance of 0.2 ppm in/on coffee, green bean was established at 0.04 ppm; (2) proposed tolerance in/on fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.20 ppm, established at 0.30 ppm; (3) proposed tolerance in/on caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 0.7 ppm, established at 0.80 ppm; (4) proposed tolerance in/on bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.25 ppm, established at 0.50 ppm; (5) proposed tolerance in/on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 1.0 ppm, established at 0.90 ppm; and (6) a proposed tolerance of 0.04 ppm in/on both coffee, instant and coffee, roasted bean was determined to be unnecessary because the tolerance on the raw agricultural commodity covers residues on the processed commodities.
In addition, the Agency is updating the tolerance expression for spinetoram as follows to reflect current EPA policies: “Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of XDE-175-J: 1-
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities listed below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of XDE-175-J: 1-
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a)
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
47 CFR 54.504(a)(1)(iii), published at 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015, is effective December 24, 2015.
James Bachtell, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
This document announces that, on December 2, 2015, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
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 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0806, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to
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 OMB approval on December 2, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rule at 47 CFR 54.504(a)(1)(iii).
Under 5 CFR part 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 3060-0806.
The foregoing document 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:
Federal Communications Commission.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board).
Final rule.
The NTSB amends its regulations which contain the NTSB's procedures for holding investigative hearings, various types of meetings, issuing reports, and responding to petitions for reconsideration. The NTSB introduced a number of substantive and technical changes in its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In the preamble to this final rule NTSB responds to the five comments the agency received, and explains the adopted changes, including reorganizing the regulation into different subparts to ensure the entire part is easy to follow.
Effective January 25, 2016.
A copy of the final rule, published in the
David Tochen, General Counsel, (202) 314-6080.
On March 19, 2015, the NTSB published an NPRM inviting public comments concerning the NTSB's procedural rules for investigative hearings, Board meetings, agency reports, and petitions for reconsideration, codified at 49 CFR part 845. 80 FR 14339. In addition to various technical changes, the NTSB proposed reorganizing the part into subparts and including descriptions of Board products.
The NTSB issued its NPRM in accordance with its June 25, 2012 notice indicating the agency's intent to undertake a review of all NTSB regulations to ensure they are updated. 77 FR 37865. Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011), prompted the NTSB to conduct its review of all NTSB regulations. The purpose of Executive Order 13579 is to ensure all agencies adhere to the key principles found in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), which include promoting public participation in rulemaking, improving integration and innovation, promoting flexibility and freedom of choice, and ensuring scientific integrity during the rulemaking process in order to create a regulatory system that protects public health, welfare, safety, and the environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. The NTSB explained in its June 25, 2012, notice that it is committed to ensuring its regulations remain updated and comply with these principles. The NTSB published an additional notice in the
The NTSB received five comments in response to the March 19, 2015 NPRM. Two of the comments addressed proposed changes to 49 CFR part 845, as well as the changes and additions we proposed in our August 12, 2014 NPRM to reorganize and change 49 CFR part 831 (“Investigation Procedures”). 79 FR 47064. In this regard, Airlines for America (A4A) submitted a comment reiterating its concerns about our proposed use of the term “event” in our NPRM for part 831, and recommended we expand our protections of voluntarily submitted information in § 831.6. In addition, The Boeing Company (Boeing) included a copy of its comment in response to our part 831 NPRM. Boeing also reiterated its recommendation that we adopt a practice of sharing draft Board reports with parties.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) urged us to change the terms “probable cause” to “probable cause(s)” throughout the part. Similarly, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) submitted a comment requesting we remove the term “event” from part 845; in particular, the USCG mentioned § 845.2 (“Investigative hearings”) in this suggestion. In addition, ALPA encouraged the NTSB to continue to use the terms “accident” and “incident” for aviation-specific investigations rather than the term “event.”
We understand commenters' concerns regarding use of the term “event” throughout this part. Several commenters expressed similar concerns in response to our part 831 NPRM. In our forthcoming final rule to finalize the changes to part 831, we will explain our responses to such comments concerning the term “event.” For this final rule to finalize changes to part 845, we simply note we understand the concerns with the term, and we have removed it from the regulatory text appearing in this final rule.
The commenters also submitted recommendations for specific sections, to which we respond below.
Regarding § 845.9, in which the NTSB proposed retaining most of the text of § 845.23 describing prehearing conferences, ALPA recommends retaining the existing language in § 845.23(b) and adding the following text to § 845.9(b): “copies of all exhibits proposed for admission by the board of inquiry and the parties shall be furnished to the board and to all the parties,
The NTSB believes it is unnecessary to include the phrase, “insofar as available at the time [of the prehearing conference],” as ALPA suggests. As proposed, the sentence requiring submission of copies of exhibits expected to be offered at hearings is sufficient to connote the exhibits would be available when offered. As ALPA noted, this requirement already exists in the current version of § 845.23(b). In addition, paragraph (c) of § 845.9 addresses the issue of a party to a hearing holding information the party
Boeing recommends we adopt the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) protocol of sharing draft reports with all parties to an NTSB investigation. Boeing contends not sharing draft reports can be detrimental to the quality of Board reports. In its submission, Boeing also attached a copy of its comment to our NPRM for part 831 regarding this issue.
A4A generally supports all the changes we proposed in part 845. A4A does not object to our proposed text in § 845.13 (“Proposed findings”), but asks us to remain cognizant that partial releases of information could cause “unproductive speculation.” In the comment A4A submitted in response to our NPRM proposing changes to part 831, A4A stated it strongly supports the practice of sharing draft reports for parties' review prior to the Board's review of the draft, in accordance with the ICAO practice.
The NTSB understands parties' interest in reviewing draft reports prior to the Board's review of them. In this regard, the agency has considered carefully the feedback we received in response to the part 831 NPRM. The agency appreciates the candor and recommendations commenters offered concerning this issue, and we are mindful that our practice differs from that of ICAO. At present, the agency believes changing its practice of the review process for draft reports is best left to internal agency procedures and need not be the subject of a rulemaking exercise. As a result, the NTSB will not change the proposed text of § 845.13 to address the sharing of draft reports.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) stated it believes the NTSB is attempting impermissibly to expand our authority. AAR opines our description of our practice for holding forums, symposiums, and conferences in § 845.21 is improper because these proceedings are “not within the scope of the NTSB's mandate or authority.” In addition, AAR challenges our process for choosing which investigations are worthy of Board meetings. In the NPRM, the agency proposed § 845.20 to state the Board may hold a meeting whenever “the Board determines holding a meeting is in the public interest.” AAR believes “the `public interest' standard is not in the current regulation at 49 CFR 804.3, and it essentially presumes an unrestricted ability to hold public meetings about any topic.”
ALPA supports our proposed language in § 845.21(b) stating symposiums, forums, and conferences are not intended to obtain evidence or establish facts for a particular NTSB investigation.
Regarding § 845.21, the USCG cautions, to the extent a proceeding may have a relationship to ongoing investigation(s) and the proceeding occurs prior to the completion of an investigation, holding the proceeding could result in premature or incomplete findings and recommendations. The USCG also states our proposed language “does not consider other investigations that are conducted concurrently, such as internal agency investigations, and the facts and conclusions that may result from those efforts.” The USCG recommends we remove the term “ongoing” from the regulatory text.
We disagree with AAR's contention that we lack the authority to hold forums, symposiums, and conferences. Under 49 U.S.C. 1116, we have held such proceedings for purposes of educating the agency and the public on transportation trends or aspects of transportation that could benefit from safety improvements. Section 1116(b) provides broad authority to the NTSB to accomplish this purpose.
Given this statutory language, it is axiomatic that the NTSB's responsibility is not limited to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 1131 and 1132 regarding investigations, or section 1133 regarding the review of aviation and mariner certificate and license appeals. The NTSB is also required to conduct special studies and investigations concerning transportation safety in general. The NTSB is best situated to exercise this mandate, given the expertise of its staff and the experiences the agency gains in investigations of accidents and incidents that safety improvements could prevent.
In light of this responsibility, the NTSB holds forums, symposiums, and conferences concerning transportation issues the agency determines warrant further interest or research. The NTSB's proposed regulatory text for § 845.21 reflects this objective, as it includes a statement that the agency does not hold such proceedings for purposes of obtaining evidence for a specific investigation of an accident or incident.
We also appreciate the USCG's comment regarding § 845.21(b). Specifically, our proposed text stated forums, symposiums, and conferences “may have a relationship to previous or ongoing investigative activities; however, their purpose is not to obtain evidence for a specific investigation.”
The clear purpose of NTSB forums, symposiums, and conferences is to focus attention on and educate the public, transportation regulators, and the NTSB itself on key transportation safety issues. Taking advantage of the educational opportunities these proceedings provide helps to ensure comprehensive NTSB investigations. Our acknowledgement in the regulatory text that such proceedings are not held for obtaining evidence, but for focusing attention, raising awareness, encouraging dialogue, educating the agency, or generally advancing or developing safety recommendations, is consistent with our past practices and our statutory responsibility, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1116. Given the purpose of these proceedings, as described in the proposed text for § 845.21, we decline to alter the text, as we do not believe the proceedings could result in premature or incomplete findings and recommendations.
Regarding our proposed text describing public dockets, which contain information pertinent to an investigation, the USCG recommends we include text stating we will coordinate with the USCG concerning public release of information in marine investigations.
In its comment, AAR mentions § 845.31 in reiterating its position that the changes the NTSB proposed in part 845 are beyond the scope of the agency's authority. Regarding the text of § 845.31, AAR states the language would allow the NTSB to open a public docket “concerning a safety study or report, special investigation report, or other agency product” in addition to doing so for an actual investigation.
AAR also mentions § 845.30(b) in the context of whether the section encompasses documents beyond the scope of the NTSB's authority. AAR states § 845.30(b) “covers `Board Products' and now includes (a) NTSB studies and reports `of more than one event that share commonalities', (b)
Regarding the USCG's comment recommending we include text stating for marine investigations, we will coordinate release of public dockets in advance with the USCG, although we decline to adopt this change in § 845.31. Section 845.31, which is largely duplicative of the existing version of § 845.50, describes public dockets in general terms, and provides information concerning how the public may obtain a copy of a public docket. The NTSB believes specific protocols concerning coordination with other agencies is more suitable for an interagency agreement or discussion.
The NTSB disagrees with AAR's opinion that the NTSB should not conduct safety studies and issue reports. As discussed above, Congress specifically directed the NTSB to conduct safety studies on a variety of issues. In addition, the NTSB's responsibility to issue safety recommendations is clear, both in the agency's authorizing legislation and legislative history. 49 U.S.C. 1135; H.R. Rep. No. 103-239(I) at 1 (1993) (emphasizing the importance of the NTSB's safety recommendations and stating that such recommendations “have saved countless human lives”). As a result of this statutory direction, the NTSB will not alter its practice of conducting safety studies, issuing safety recommendations, and creating and issuing other types of documents that will improve transportation safety. The agency can only achieve its broad mandate by issuing such documents. The NTSB's choice of the term “Board products” will ensure adequate flexibility in the future, to encompass a variety of documents the agency determines will aid in achieving the ultimate goal of improving transportation safety.
Although no comments addressed the issue of whether the NTSB's disposition of a petition for reconsideration or modification should be subject to judicial review, the agency notes a recent judicial order denying a petition for review. On June 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the NTSB's disposition of a petition for reconsideration was not subject to a federal court's review.
The agency denied the petition for reconsideration, and the petitioner sought review of both the NTSB's reports of its investigation and the response to his petition for reconsideration. The appellate court held that, because neither the reports nor the response can be considered a final order subject to judicial review, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
In reaching its conclusion, the court cited 49 CFR 831.4 (“Nature of investigation”), which states the NTSB uses its investigations “to ascertain measures that would best tend to prevent similar accidents or incidents in the future.” 49 CFR 831.4. The court went on to quote the regulation further, which states NTSB investigations are considered “fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties. They are not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person.”
The court stated it lacked jurisdiction to consider not only the agency's reports and conclusions, but it also could not review the NTSB's denial of the petition for reconsideration. The court based this conclusion on the fact that the reconsideration procedure the petitioner used was not created by any statute, but was a process set forth in the NTSB's regulations. The court described the process as one that allows the agency to receive new evidence after it completes an accident investigation and noted this procedure functions to ensure the NTSB “develops safety recommendations based on the most complete record possible.” 791 F.3d at 12. As a result, the court characterized petitions for reconsideration as “simply another stage of the accident investigation procedure.”
In this final rule, the NTSB re-inserts the phrase “in the event of a catastrophic accident” within § 845.4 (“Determination to hold hearing”). The regulatory text of the NPRM did not include this phrase, even though the phrase currently exists in the regulatory text of § 845.10. Upon further evaluation of the regulation, the NTSB has determined it is prudent to retain the phrase.
The NTSB's NPRM proposed two sections that both described the procedure of providing notice of the time and place of the investigative hearing. Section 845.5(c)(1) proposed text stating the “NTSB” would provide notice of the time and place of the investigative hearing to all known interested persons. Section 845.7 proposed text stating the investigative hearing officer, upon designation by the NTSB Chairman, would have the authority to give notice concerning the time and place of investigative hearing. While the text of these sections is not inconsistent, and is identical to the language that exists in the current versions of §§ 845.12 and 845.21, the NTSB nevertheless believes, as an administrative matter, it is appropriate to remove from § 845.5(c)(1) the statement that, “[t]he NTSB will provide notice of the time and place of the investigative hearing. . . .” The NTSB provides such notice by way of delegating to the hearing officer the responsibility and the authority to do so. In the interest of providing regulations that are concise and abundantly clear, the NTSB removes the aforementioned statement from § 845.5(c)(1). In addition, in § 845.7, the NTSB herein adds the phrase, “or a Board Member designated by the Chairman” to the introductory text stating the investigative hearing officer, upon designation by the NTSB Chairman or a Board Member designated by the Chairman will have the list of “powers” that follows within the section. This addition will ensure the designation of a hearing officer can occur at times the NTSB Chairman has delegated his or her authority.
In the NPRM, the NTSB included a regulatory analysis section concerning
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not require a Regulatory Assessment, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866. In addition, on July 11, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,” 76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011). Section 2(a) of the Executive Order states:
Independent regulatory agencies “should consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”
This rule does not require an analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1501-1571, or the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.
The NTSB has also analyzed these amendments in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” This final rule does not contain any regulations that would: (1) Have a substantial direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments; or (3) preempt state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
The NTSB is also aware that the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Regarding other Executive Orders and statutory provisions, this final rule also complies with all applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. In addition, the NTSB has evaluated this rule under: Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”; Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”; Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note. The NTSB has concluded this rule does not contravene any of the requirements set forth in these Executive Orders or statutes, nor does this rule prompt further consideration with regard to such requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB revises 49 CFR part 845 to read as follows:
Sec. 515, Pub. L. 106-554, App. C, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note); 49 U.S.C. 1112, 1113(f), 1116, 1131, unless otherwise noted.
Unless otherwise specifically ordered by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the provisions of this part shall govern all NTSB proceedings conducted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1113 and 1131, and reports issued by the Board.
Investigative hearings are convened to assist the NTSB in further developing the facts, conditions, and circumstances of the transportation accident or incident, which will ultimately assist the Board in determining the cause or probable cause of the accident or incident, and in ascertaining measures that will tend to prevent such accidents or incidents and promote transportation safety. Investigative hearings are fact-finding proceedings with no adverse parties. They are not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554) and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights, liabilities, or blame of any person or entity.
(a) All investigative hearings shall normally be open to the public. However, no person shall be allowed at any time to interfere with the proper and orderly functioning of the hearing.
(b) Sessions shall not be open to the public when evidence of a classified nature or which affects national security is to be received.
(a) The Board may order an investigative hearing as part of an investigation whenever a hearing is deemed necessary in the public interest.
(b) If a quorum of the Board is not immediately available in the event of a catastrophic accident, the determination to hold an investigative hearing may be made by the Chairman of the Board.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) To designate parties to the investigative hearing and revoke such designations;
(2) To open, continue, or adjourn the investigative hearing;
(3) To determine the admissibility of and to receive evidence and to regulate the course of the investigative hearing;
(4) To dispose of procedural requests or similar matters; and
(5) To take any other appropriate action to ensure the orderly conduct of the investigative hearing.
(a) The chairman of the board of inquiry shall designate as parties to the investigative hearing those persons and organizations whose participation in the hearing is deemed necessary in the public interest and whose special knowledge will contribute to the development of pertinent evidence. Parties to the investigative hearing shall be represented by suitable representatives who do not occupy legal positions.
(b) No party to the investigation and/or investigative hearing shall be represented by any person who also represents claimants or insurers. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in loss of status as a party to the investigative hearing.
The investigative hearing officer, upon designation by the NTSB Chairman or a Board Member designated by the Chairman, shall have the following powers:
(a) To give notice concerning the time and place of investigative hearing;
(b) To administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses; and
(c) To issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of documents. The investigative hearing officer may, in consultation with the chairman of the board of inquiry and the NTSB Managing Director, add witnesses until the time of the prehearing conference.
The appropriate office director(s) and/or the hearing officer, in consultation with the NTSB Managing Director, shall determine if a technical panel is needed and, if so, shall designate members of the NTSB technical staff to participate in the investigative hearing. Members of the technical panel may conduct pre-screening of witnesses through interviews, and may take other actions to prepare for the hearing. At the hearing, the technical panel will initially examine the witnesses through questioning. The technical panel shall examine witnesses and secure, in the form of a public record, facts pertaining to the accident or incident under investigation and surrounding circumstances and conditions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the chairman of the board of inquiry, or his/her designee, shall hold a prehearing conference with the parties to the investigative hearing at a convenient time and place prior to the hearing. At the prehearing conference, the parties shall be advised of the witnesses to be called at the investigative hearing, the topics about which they will be examined, and the exhibits that will be offered in evidence.
(b) At the prehearing conference, parties to the investigative hearing shall submit copies of any additional documentary exhibits they desire to offer for admission at the hearing.
(c) A party to the investigative hearing who, at the time of the prehearing conference, fails to advise the chairman of the board of inquiry of additional exhibits he or she intends to submit, or additional witnesses he or she desires to examine, shall be prohibited from introducing such evidence unless the chairman of the board of inquiry determines for good cause shown that such evidence should be admitted.
(d) The board of inquiry may hold an investigative hearing on an expedited schedule. The chairman of the board of inquiry may hold a prehearing conference for an expedited investigative hearing. When an expedited investigative hearing is held, the chairman of the board of inquiry may waive the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section concerning the identification of witnesses, exhibits or other evidence.
Any person who appears to testify at an investigative hearing has the right to be accompanied, represented, or advised by counsel or by any other representative.
(a)
(b)
(2) Such matters shall be controlled by rulings of the chairman of the board of inquiry on his or her own motion. If the examination of a witness by a party to the investigative hearing is interrupted by a ruling of the chairman of the board of inquiry, the party shall have the opportunity to show materiality, relevancy, or competency of the testimony or evidence sought to be elicited from the witness.
In accordance with § 845.2, the chairman of the board of inquiry shall receive all testimony and evidence that may be of aid in determining the probable cause of the transportation accident or incident. He or she may exclude any testimony or exhibits that are not pertinent to the investigation or are merely cumulative.
Following the investigative hearing, any party to the hearing may submit proposed findings to be drawn from the testimony and exhibits, a proposed probable cause, and proposed safety recommendations designed to prevent future accidents or incidents. The proposals shall be submitted within the time specified by the investigative hearing officer at the close of the hearing, and shall be made a part of the public docket. Parties to the investigative hearing shall serve copies of their proposals on all other parties to the hearing.
A verbatim report of the investigative hearing shall be taken. Any interested person may obtain copies of the transcript from the NTSB or from the court reporting firm preparing the transcript upon payment of the fees fixed therefor. (See part 801, subpart G, Fee schedule.)
Any witness subpoenaed to attend the investigative hearing under this part shall be paid such fees for travel and attendance for which the hearing officer shall certify.
The Board may hold a meeting concerning an investigation or Board product, as described in § 804.3 of this chapter or any other circumstance, when the Board determines holding a meeting is in the public interest.
(a)(1)
(ii) A forum is a public proceeding generally organized in a question-and-answer format with various invited participants who may make presentation and are available for questioning by the Board or designated NTSB staff as individuals in a panel format.
(iii) A conference is a large, organized proceeding where individuals present materials, and a moderator or chairperson facilitates group discussions.
(2) These proceedings are related to transportation safety matters and will be convened for the purpose of focusing attention, raising awareness, encouraging dialogue, educating the NTSB, or generally advancing or developing safety recommendations. The goals of the proceeding will be clearly articulated and outlined, and will be consistent with the mission of the NTSB.
(b) A quorum of Board Members is not required to attend a forum, symposium, or conference. All three types of proceedings described in paragraph (a) of this section may have a relationship to previous or ongoing investigative activities; however, their purpose is not to obtain evidence for a specific investigation.
(c) Symposiums, forums, and conferences are voluntary for all invited participants.
(a)
(2) The probable cause and facts, conditions, and circumstances of other accidents or incidents will be reported in a manner and form prescribed by the Board. The NTSB allows the appropriate office director, under his or her delegated authority as described in § 800.25 of this chapter, to issue a “brief,” which includes the probable cause and relevant facts, conditions, and circumstances concerning the accident or incident. Such briefs do not include recommendations. In particular circumstances, the Board in its discretion may choose to approve a brief.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(a)
(2) The NTSB shall establish the public docket following the accident or incident, and material shall be added thereto as it becomes available. Where an investigative hearing is held, the exhibits will be introduced into the record at the hearing and will be included in the public docket.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) Petitions must be in writing and addressed to the NTSB Chairman. Please send your petition via email to
(3) Petitions must be based on the discovery of new evidence or on a showing that the Board's findings are erroneous. (i) Petitions based on the discovery of new matter shall: Identify the new matter; contain affidavits of prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both, or an explanation of why such substantiation is unavailable; and state why the new matter was not available prior to Board's adoption of its findings.
(ii) Petitions based on a claim of erroneous findings shall set forth in detail the grounds upon which the claim is based.
(b)
(c)
(2) Any party served with a copy of the petition may file comments no later than 90 days after service of the petition.
(d)
The Board never officially closes an investigation, but provides for the submission of new and pertinent evidence by any interested person. If the Board finds such evidence is relevant and probative, the evidence shall be made a part of the public docket and, where appropriate, the Board will provide parties an opportunity to examine such evidence and to comment thereon.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of Pacific cod from catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using pot gear and catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear to catcher/processors (C/Ps) using hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2015 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 21, 2015, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2015.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2015 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI is 13,641 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and reallocations (80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015, 80 FR 65971, October 28, 2015, and 80 FR 76250, December 8, 2015). The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI will not be able to harvest 1,750 mt of the remaining 2015 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The 2015 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 12,380 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and reallocations (80 FR 51757, August 26, 2015, and 80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015). The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI will not be able to harvest 1,750 mt of the remaining 2015 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A) and § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(C), NMFS reallocates 3,500 mt of Pacific cod to C/Ps using hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area.
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015, 80 FR 51757, August 26, 2015, 80 FR 57105, September 22, 2015 and 80 FR 65971, October 28, 2015, and 80 FR 76250, December 8, 2015) are revised as follows: 11,891 mt for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear, 10,630 mt for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, and 118,871 mt for C/Ps using hook-and-line gear.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from multiple sectors to C/Ps using hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 15, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes that would supersede AD 2007-06-06. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 8, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4159; fax: (816) 329-3047; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On March 6, 2007, we issued AD 2007-06-06, Amendment 39-14987 (72 FR 12557; March 16, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2007-06-06, there are reports of premature failures of the affected part number (P/N) DU130-24 pitot-static probes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2015-0199, dated October 7, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct the above-referenced unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
In 2005, occurrences were reported of finding cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads, Part Number (P/N) DU130-24.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation,
To address this potential unsafe condition, B-N Group issued Service Bulletin (SB) 310 to provide inspection and test instructions. Consequently, CAA UK issued AD G-2005-0034 (EASA approval 2005-6447) to require repetitive inspections and leak tests and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Subsequently, B-N Group published SB 310 issue 2, prompting EASA to issue AD
Since that AD was issued, operators have reported a number of premature failures of the affected P/N DU130-24 pitot-static probes.
Prompted by these reports, BNA issued SB 310 issue 4 to reduce the interval for the inspections and leak tests.
For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2006-0143R1, which is superseded, but requires those actions at reduced intervals.
B-N Group Ltd. has issued Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections, and if necessary, replacement of the pitot/static pressure head. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA has reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. The proposed AD does differ from the MCAI in that it does not reference BNA Mod NB-M-1728 as an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections and leak tests. The FAA is unable to make these instructions reasonably available to interested parties so therefore we are unable to include this in the AD. After issuance of the final AD, the FAA will consider this modification as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the AD provided it is submitted following the instructions in the AD and 14 CFR 39.19.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 93 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,905, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $10,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 8, 2016.
This AD supersedes AD 2007-06-06 (72 FR 12557; March 16, 2007).
This AD applies to B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII, BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 34: Navigation.
This AD was prompted by cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this proposed AD to inspect the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads for cracks, and replace if necessary.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0199, dated October 7, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-16-02, for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes. AD 2014-16-02 currently requires revising the airplane flight manual to prohibit thrust reverser operation, doing repetitive detailed inspections of both engine thrust reversers for cracks, and modifying the thrust reversers if necessary. The modification of the thrust reversers is also an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Since we issued AD 2014-16-02, we have determined that it is necessary to add a requirement to repair or modify the thrust reversers, which would terminate the requirements of AD 2014-16-02. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks of the translating sleeve at the thrust reverser actuator attachment points, which could result in deployment or dislodgement of an engine thrust reverser in flight and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 8, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On August 4, 2014, we issued AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014). AD 2014-16-02 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes. AD 2014-16-02 is parallel to Canadian AD CF-2014-19, dated June 20, 2014, which additionally mandated repair or modification of the thrust reversers. At that time, we had determined that the compliance time for that action would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the actions. The preamble to AD 2014-16-02 indicated we were considering further rulemaking to require repair or modification of the thrust reversers. We now have determined that further rulemaking is necessary.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014), and retained in this proposed AD, take about 29 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-16-02 is $2,465 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 100 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $509 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $162,162, or $9,009 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 8, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1004 through 1085.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust.
This AD was prompted by reports of partial deployment of an engine thrust reverser in flight caused by a failure of the translating sleeve at the thrust reverser attachment points. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks of the translating sleeve at the thrust reverser actuator attachment points, which could result in deployment or dislodgement of an engine thrust reverser in flight and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014), with no changes. Within 1 calendar day after August 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-16-02): Revise the applicable sections of the AFM to include the information specified in the temporary revisions (TRs) identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable. These TRs introduce procedures to prohibit thrust reverser operation. Operate the airplane according to the limitations and procedures in the TRs identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable. The revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be done by inserting copies of the applicable TRs identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3),
(1) Canadair TR 600/29, dated June 20, 2014, to the Canadair CL-600-1A11 AFM.
(2) Canadair TR 600/30, dated June 6, 2014, to the Canadair CL-600-1A11 AFM.
(3) Canadair TR 600-1/24, dated June 20, 2014, to the Canadair CL-600-1A11 AFM (Winglets) including Erratum, Publication No. PSP 600-1AFM (US), TR No. 600-1/24, June 20, 2014.
(4) Canadair TR 600-1/26, dated June 6, 2014, to the Canadair CL-600-1A11 AFM (Winglets).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014), with no changes. Within 25 flight cycles or 90 days, whichever occurs first, after August 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-16-02), do detailed inspections (including a borescope inspection) of both engine thrust reversers for cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0769, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2014.
(1) If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles until the repair or modification specified in paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD is done.
(2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, modify the thrust reversers on both engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0769, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2014.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014), with no changes. Modifying the thrust reversers on both engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0769, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2014, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-16-02, Amendment 39-17926 (79 FR 46968, August 12, 2014), with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-16-02) using Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0769, dated June 19, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, repair or modify the thrust reversers on both engines, using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). Accomplishment of the repair or modification of all thrust reversers terminates the requirements of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2014-19, dated June 20, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-955-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV and GV-SP airplanes. The NPRM proposed to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-22-19, which requires inspecting to determine if fuel boost pumps having a certain part number are installed, replacing the fuel boost pumps having a certain part number, and revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program to include revised instructions for continued airworthiness. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the airplane maintenance program to include a fuel leak check of the fuel boost pumps, using new service information. The NPRM was prompted by reports of two independent types of failure of the fuel boost pump: overheat damage on the internal components and external housing, and fuel leakage. This action revises the NPRM by reducing the compliance time for revising the airplane maintenance program. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent fuel leakage in combination with a capacitor clearance issue, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by February 8, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjana Murthy, Aersopace Engineer, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: 404-474-5573; fax: 404-474-5567; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013), which applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV and GV-SP airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 59162, October 1, 2014), we have determined it is necessary to reduce the compliance time for revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program in order to address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specifies a compliance time of “within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD” to accomplish the revision, which incorporates the fuel leak check inspection of the fuel boost pumps. The leak check is intended to be performed at 500-hour increments after the installation of the part number (P/N) 1159SCP500-7 boost pump. However, operators that have already installed the P/N 1159SCP500-7 boost pump would not be required to perform the leak check until after the maintenance or inspection program is revised,
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 59162, October 1, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Gulfstream requested that the FAA reference the upcoming revision to the airworthiness limitations section of the GV, G500, and G550 maintenance manuals. Gulfstream stated that the maintenance manuals will include a revised fuel leak check interval of 500 hours ±50 hours. Gulfstream stated that drafts of the maintenance manuals were scheduled to be submitted to the FAA by December 2014, with FAA approval expected. Gulfstream also stated that the revisions to the airplane maintenance program include revised instructions for continued airworthiness to avoid future AD revisions on this subject. Gulfstream stated that AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013), references the 05-20-00, Table 20 Fuel Boost Pump fuel leak check interval of 500 hours, which would prohibit the ±50-hour provision that the Gulfstream safety assessment allows, limiting the flexibility of Gulfstream's operators to perform this fuel leak check concurrently with other scheduled maintenance.
We have reviewed the supporting data for this request and we agree with the request to change the compliance time. We have revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD to accommodate this request. In order to decrease the burden on operators, we are adding 50 hours to the compliance time, which will enable operators to complete the requirements of this proposed AD as well as their mandatory inspection requirement during the same overhaul.
Operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service information, when it is approved, as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this proposed AD.
Gulfstream requested that a compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 59162, October 1, 2014) be revised. Gulfstream requested that the following language be included in paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD, which is for airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD reveals that a fuel boost pump with
The initial compliance time . . . is within 500 flight hours after installation of the P/N 11 59SCP500-7 pump, or within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD if 500 flight hours have accumulated since installation of the P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump and an initial leak check of the pump has not been accomplished.
We agree to revise the compliance time. The leak check is intended to be performed at 500-hour increments ± 50 flight hours after the installation of the P/N 1159SCP500-7 boost pump. We have added new paragraph (i)(2)(i) to this proposed AD to specify compliances times relative to installation of the P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump.
We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the proposed AD (79 FR 59162, October 1, 2014). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This SNPRM would require inspecting to determine if fuel boost pumps having a certain part number are installed, replacing the fuel boost pumps having a certain part number, and revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program to include revised instructions for continued airworthiness.
We have reviewed Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012 (for Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500), which describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the fuel boost pumps.
We have also reviewed the following service information, as applicable, which describes, among other actions, a fuel leak check of the fuel boost pumps and inspection intervals:
• Table 18, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in Section 05-20-00, of Chapter 5, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 42, dated June 20, 2013;
• Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, of Chapter 28, Fuel, of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 42, dated June 20, 2013;
• Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Checks, in Table 20, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in Section 05-20-00, of Chapter 5, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013;
• Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, of Section 26, Fuel Boost Pumps, of Chapter 28, Fuel, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013;
• Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, in Table 20, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in Section 05-20-00, of Chapter 5, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013; and
• Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, of Section 26, Fuel Boost Pumps, of Chapter 28, Fuel, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013.
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 proposed AD would affect 357 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
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
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 8, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013).
This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV and GV-SP airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of two independent types of failure of the fuel boost pump: overheat damage on the internal components and external housing, and fuel leakage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leakage in combination with a capacitor clearance issue, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013), with revised service information. Within 36 months after January 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-22-19), inspect the fuel boost pumps to determine whether Gulfstream part number (P/N) 1159SCP500-5 is installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD; including Triumph Aerostructures Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-JG0162, dated August 30, 2011; and GE Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated February 15, 2011. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the fuel boost pumps can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For Model GV airplanes: Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012.
(2) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500: Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012; or Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
(3) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G550: Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013), with revised service information. If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals a fuel boost pump with Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5: Within 36 months after January 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-22-19), replace the fuel boost pump with a serviceable pump having Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7, in accordance with the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD; including Triumph Aerostructures Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-JG0162, dated August 30, 2011; and GE Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated February 15, 2011.
(1) For Model GV airplanes: Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012.
(2) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500: Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012; or Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
(3) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G550: Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the fuel leak check inspection of the fuel boost pumps specified in the applicable task identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which fuel boost pump Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 has been replaced in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD: The initial compliance time for the leak check inspection specified in the applicable task identified in paragraph (j) of this AD is within 550 flight hours after doing the replacement specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals that a fuel boost pump with Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7 has been installed: The initial compliance time for the leak check inspection specified in the applicable task identified in paragraph (j) of this AD, is at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Within 550 flight hours after the installation of the P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump; except if 550 flight hours have accumulated since installation of the P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump and an initial leak check of the pump has not been accomplished, the compliance time is within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Use the applicable service information specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD to revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) For Model GV airplanes: Use table 18, “500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table,” in section 05-20-00, of chapter 5, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 42, dated June 20, 2013.
(2) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500: Use task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Checks, in table 20, “500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table,” in section 05-20-00, of chapter 5, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, of section 26, Fuel Boost Pumps, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the Gulfstream
(3) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G550: Use task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, in table 20, “500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table,” in section 05-20-00, of chapter 5, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps—Fuel Leak Check, of section 26, Fuel Boost Pumps, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
As of January 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013)), no person may install a fuel boost pump having Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
(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) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (m)(4)(i) and (m)(4)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjana Murthy, Aersopace Engineer, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: 404-474-5573; fax: 404-474-5567; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912 965-3520; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in a certain section of the secondary structure of the wing. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the trailing edge rib, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking that could lead to failure of the affected rib and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 8, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1139.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0271, dated December 12, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Service experience with the Fokker 100 type design has shown that cracking can occur in the secondary structure of the wing at station 8700, rib Part Number (P/N) D15445-013/-014 (or lower dash number) in the trailing edge section. The hydraulic actuator assembly, hydraulic lines, the cable pulleys, the anti-upfloat quadrant and the associated mechanical linkages including flutter dampers are all positioned in the affected area, between wing stations 8200 and 9270.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the affected rib, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) SBF100-57-048, which provides inspection instructions to detect any cracks in the affected area.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection of the trailing edge rib at wing station 8700 and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
This AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow, possibly to introduce new ALS [Airworthiness Limitations Section] tasks, if justified by the inspection results.
Corrective actions include repair of cracking in the secondary structure of the wing at station 8700, rib Part Number (P/N) D15445-013/-014 (or lower dash number), in the trailing edge section.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-048, dated October 27, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the trailing edge section at the rib of wing station 8700 for cracking. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 8, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by report of cracking in the secondary structure of the wing at station 8700. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking that could lead to failure of the affected rib and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the trailing edge rib at wing station 8700, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-048, dated October 27, 2014. If any crack is found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA Design Organizational Authority (DOA).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Airworthiness Directive 2014-0271, dated December 12, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Danville, AR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Danville Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-4836; Docket No. 15-ASW-16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Danville Municipal Airport, Danville, AR.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11.0-mile radius of Danville Municipal Airport, Danville, AR, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 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.
(Lat. 35°05′13″ N., long. 093°25′39″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 11.0-mile radius of Danville Municipal Airport.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its regulations to clarify the scope of ownership information that sellers seeking to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must provide. The Commission proposes to find that the current policy that requires sellers to provide comprehensive ownership information is not necessary for the Commission's assessment of horizontal or vertical market power. The Commission further proposes to amend its regulations to clarify the types of ownership changes that must be
Comments are due February 22, 2016.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission proposes to amend its regulations to clarify the scope of ownership information that sellers seeking to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must provide.
2. The Commission allows power sales at market-based rates if the seller and its affiliates do not have, or have adequately mitigated, horizontal and vertical market power. In Order No. 697, the Commission stated that “[t]he first step for a seller seeking market-based rate authority is to file an application to show that it and its affiliates do not have, or have adequately mitigated, market power.”
3. On rehearing, in Order No. 697-A, the Commission set forth a requirement that a seller seeking to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must identify all of its upstream owners as well as describe the business activity of its owners and whether they are involved in the energy industry. Specifically, footnote 258 of Order No. 697-A states:
A seller seeking market-based rate authority must provide information regarding its affiliates and its corporate structure or upstream ownership. To the extent that a seller's owners are themselves owned by others, the seller seeking to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must identify those upstream owners. Sellers must trace
4. However, as discussed below, after seven years of experience in implementing the requirements of footnote 258, we believe that the associated burdens on the industry of providing this information may outweigh the benefits of this information for purposes of assessing whether a seller should be granted market-based rate authorization.
5. In conjunction with the new organizational chart requirement in Order No. 816, we propose in this NOPR to provide a new complementary framework under which sellers can describe their ownership structure, as described more fully below. Consistent with this new framework, we also propose to clarify when a change in ownership would trigger the requirement in section 35.42 to file a notice of change in status.
6. Following the issuance of Order No. 697-A in 2008, corporate families, structures, and ownership in the energy industry have become increasingly complex. Through the Commission's implementation of the requirements of footnote 258, it has become clear that the upstream ownership structure of sellers is often layered with numerous levels and types of ownership interests (
7. Sellers have frequently alleged that it is very difficult to identify and describe individual shareholders, particularly those with less than ten percent voting interests, because they do not know and cannot obtain this information themselves.
8. As noted above, a seller seeking market-based rate authority must show that it and its affiliates do not have, or have adequately mitigated, horizontal market power. Further, the Commission's review of a seller's ability to exercise vertical market power, whether through ownership of transmission facilities or other barriers to entry, involves examining the seller and its affiliates.
9. Accordingly, we propose to amend section 35.37(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations to provide a new framework under which sellers would be required to describe their ownership structure that is both less burdensome for the industry and more useful to the Commission for purposes of whether a seller should have market-based-rate authority. Under this new framework, we propose to revise section 35.37(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations to define an affiliate owner as an owner that meets the definition of affiliate provided in 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9).
10. Identifying the ultimate affiliate owner is necessary for the Commission to form a meaningful picture of a seller's ownership structure and to understand what affiliates ultimately have the power to influence a seller's operations. The seller should also describe each ultimate affiliate owner's connection to the seller, and this description should be sufficient to allow the Commission to understand the relation between the seller and the ultimate affiliate owner(s), and could include references to the required corporate organizational chart. Identifying affiliate owners that have a franchised service area or market-based rate authority, or that directly own or control: Generation; transmission; intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies assists the Commission in its analysis of a seller's horizontal and vertical market power.
11. In addition, where sellers are directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign government or any political subdivision of a foreign government or any corporation which is owned in whole or in part by such entity, we propose to require that the seller identify such foreign government, political subdivision, or corporation.
12. We caution sellers to examine all ownership information to ensure that the required affiliate owners are identified. Sellers should not assume that owners are not affiliates of the seller without looking to the top of the ownership chain. For example, suppose seller (Company A) has four owners (Companies B, C, D, and E) each of which directly owns eight percent of the voting securities of A. If Company F owns 100 percent of the voting securities of Companies B, C, D, and E, under the Commission's affiliate definition, Company F indirectly owns 32 percent of the voting securities of Company A and is an affiliate of Company A. Under our proposed new framework, sellers must identify Company F only if Company F is an ultimate affiliate owner or if it is an affiliate owner that has a franchised service area or market-based rate authority, or that directly owns or controls: Generation; transmission; intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies.
13. With respect to owners that a seller represents to be passive, we propose to require that the seller affirm that its passive owners own a separate class of securities, have limited consent rights, do not exercise day-to-day control over the company, and cannot remove the manager without cause.
14. We seek comments on these proposals.
15. The Commission requires market-based rate sellers to timely report any change in status that would “reflect a departure from the characteristics that the Commission relied upon in granting market-based rate authority.” Section 35.42 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.42, which provides a non-exhaustive list of events that could trigger the change in status reporting requirement, is silent as to generic ownership changes, but requires that a seller must report certain new affiliations with any entity not disclosed in the application for market-based rate authority that has a franchised service area, or that directly owns or controls: generation facilities; transmission facilities; intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies. However, a literal reading of footnote 258 requires sellers to report changes in upstream ownership via notices of change in status filings.
16. We believe that uncertainty as to the interpretation of footnote 258 has led to inconsistent reporting of changes in ownership. In our experience, some sellers report any change in ownership, other sellers only report changes in ownership when the new owner would be considered an affiliate pursuant to section 35.36(a)(9), and yet other sellers only report changes in ownership when the change in ownership causes a change in one of the triggering events explicitly listed in section 35.42. Accordingly, we propose to resolve the uncertainty and create a consistent reporting standard by amending section 35.42 of the Commission's regulations
17. In light of our proposal to require sellers to identify and describe in their initial applications and triennial updated market power analyses their ultimate affiliate owners, and all affiliate owners that have franchised service areas or market-based rate authority or that directly own or control: generation; transmission; intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies it follows that the identity of such affiliate owners are characteristics that the Commission relies upon in granting the seller market-based rate authority. However, we are also mindful of Order No. 816, in which the Commission amended section 35.42 to provide a 100 MW threshold for reporting new affiliations, and thus we propose that these two concepts be combined, as described below. In addition, we propose in the instant rulemaking to specify the following scenario as an additional departure from the characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-based rate authority and which should be reported to the Commission: when the seller acquires a new ultimate affiliate owner(s). Accordingly, we propose to require sellers to submit a notice of change in status in this scenario as well. In summary, combining all three of the above concepts, we propose that a change in status reporting requirement will be triggered by: (a) Any change in the seller's ultimate affiliate owner(s); or (b) the introduction of any new affiliate owner of the seller that has a franchised service area or that: directly owns or controls generation (if it represents a 100 MW or more net increase in seller and affiliate generation); owns, operates or controls transmission; or that directly
18. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
19. The Commission is submitting the proposed modifications to its information collection to OMB for review and approval in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
20. The following table provides the estimated burden reduction proposed in RM16-3:
• Lawyer (Code 23-0000), $129.87/hour.
• Management Analyst (Code 13-1111), $63.03/hour.
21. Comments concerning the information collection proposed in this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
22. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
23. The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.
24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
25. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due February 22, 2016. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-3-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
26. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
27. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
28. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
29. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
30. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
31. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Electric power rates; Electric utilities; Reporting and record-keeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) When submitting a market power analysis, whether as part of an initial application or an update, a Seller must include a description of its ownership structure that identifies all ultimate affiliate owner(s),
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Has a franchised service area; or
(v) Is an ultimate affiliate owner, defined as the furthest upstream affiliate(s) in the ownership chain.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Department of Labor (Department) issued a proposed rule in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed rule on or before January 20, 2016. The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 6, 2015 (80 FR 68907) is extended. Comments, identified by RIN 1205-AB59, must be received on or before January 20, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB59, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit your comments by only one method and within the designated comment period. Comments received by means other than those listed above or received after the comment period has closed will not be reviewed. The Department will post all comments received on
Adele Gagliardi, Office of Policy Development and Research, ETA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) 693-3700 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
This document extends the public comment period established in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Apprenticeship, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Training.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Department of the Treasury.
Notice of availability; Regulatory Impact Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
By this notice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) announces the availability of two related documents that are part of the Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions Proposed Rulemaking: A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
Written comments on the RIA and IRFA must be received on or before January 25, 2016.
The RIA and IRFA are available on FinCEN's Web site at
•
•
• Inspection of comments: The public dockets for FinCEN can be found at Regulations.gov.
FinCEN's Resource Center, (800) 767-2825.
The Secretary has delegated to the Director of FinCEN the authority to implement, administer and enforce compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and associated regulations.
On August 4, 2014, FinCEN published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The comment period for the proposed rule closed on October 3, 2014. FinCEN received a total of 135 comments representing a wide range of views covering most aspects of the NPRM. A large number of commenters asserted that the NPRM lacked sufficient data to support its estimate of costs and substantially underestimated implementation and compliance-related costs.
The primary purpose of the proposed CDD requirements is to assist financial investigations by law enforcement in order to severely impair criminals' ability to exploit the anonymity provided by the of use legal entities to engage in financial crimes including fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, and sanctions evasion.
Based on comments and information received during further outreach to some financial institutions that provided comments on the proposal, FinCEN determined that the implementation and compliance-related costs may exceed $100 million annually, making this rulemaking an “economically significant regulatory action.” In such cases, Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 require agencies to conduct an RIA, which the agencies must publish for comment. At FinCEN's request, Treasury's Office of Economic Policy conducted an RIA of the proposed rule, developed in accordance with these Executive Orders, which evaluates the economic costs and benefits of the CDD rule and its alternatives. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, an RIA must contain the following three basic elements: (1) A statement of the need for the regulatory action; (2) a clear identification of a range of regulatory approaches; and (3) an estimate of the benefits and costs—both quantitative and qualitative—of the proposed regulatory action and its alternatives.
The
To disrupt the flow of illicit proceeds more effectively, the proposed CDD rule would provide Federal and state regulators and law enforcement with easier access to beneficial ownership information of legal entities—
Although the potential benefits of the rule are difficult to quantify, the breakeven analysis utilized in the RIA indicates that the proposed CDD rule would only need to generate a very modest relative decrease in illicit activity to justify the costs it would impose. Taking into account only the estimated annual flow of illicit funds in the United States of $300 billion, the breakeven analysis allows FinCEN to conservatively conclude that the CDD rule would need to reduce the estimated annual flow of illicit proceeds by only 0.45 percent (in each year of 2016-2025, the years covered by the RIA) in order to justify the costs the rule would impose over a ten-year period. FinCEN expects more benefits given that greater transparency would reduce illicit activity in other ways, as referenced above.
The IRFA evaluates the economic impact of the CDD rule on small entities, and was developed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to assess the impact of regulatory action on small entities, and is a requirement independent from the RIA (although the IRFA relies in part on the analysis conducted in the RIA). As a result of this analysis, Treasury and FinCEN continue to believe that, while
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper commercial and recreational sector allocations of the stock annual catch limit (ACL). If Amendment 28 is approved and implemented, it would result in changes to the red snapper commercial and recreational quotas and the recreational annual catch target (ACT). Additionally, the Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component ACLs and ACTs, which are based on the recreational sector's ACL and ACT, would also be revised. The intent of Amendment 28 is to reallocate the Gulf red snapper harvest consistent with the 2014 red snapper update assessment while ensuring the allowable catch and recovery benefits from the rebuilding red snapper stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors to achieve optimum yield (OY).
Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments on Amendment 28, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0146” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 28, which includes an environmental impact statement, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 28 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, OY from federally managed fish stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that in allocating fishing privileges among fishermen, such allocation shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. For stocks like red snapper, which are subject to a rebuilding plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that harvest restrictions and recovery benefits are fairly and equitably allocated among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. Amendment 28 would reallocate red snapper harvest from the commercial sector to the recreational sector. The reallocation would reduce the current commercial allocation from 51 percent to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL and the recreational allocation would increase from 49 percent to 51.5 percent of the stock ACL. All weights described in this notice are in round (whole) weight.
The initial Gulf red snapper allocation was set in Reef Fish Amendment 1 to the FMP and was based on the percentage of total landings during the base period of 1979-1987 (55 FR 2078, January 22, 1990). In Amendment 28, the Council evaluated several different Gulf red snapper allocation alternatives. These alternatives included straightforward allocation percentage changes, changes based on the red snapper stock ACL increases, and changes in the recreational catch information used in the 2014 update assessment to the 2013 Gulf red snapper Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 31 benchmark assessment. The Council initially considered alternatives that would increase the commercial sector's red snapper allocation. At that time, analyses from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) suggested that shifting red snapper allocation from the commercial to the recreational sector would increase net economic benefits. Thus, the Council determined that reallocating red snapper to the commercial sector would not achieve the purpose of the amendment at that time, which was to increase the net benefits from red
The preferred alternative in Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf red snapper allocation to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL to the commercial sector and 51.5 percent of the stock ACL to the recreational sector. This results in proposed commercial quotas (48.5 percent of the stock ACL) of 6.768 million lb (3.070 million kg) and 6.664 million lb (3.023 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years, respectively. The recreational quota (51.5 percent of the stock ACL) would be 7.192 million lb (3.262 million kg) and 7.076 million lb (3.210 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years, respectively. For the recreational sector, the ACT would be set 20 percent less than the recreational quotas and, as described in Amendment 40 to the FMP, the recreational quota and ACT would be further divided into Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015).
A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 28 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 28 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the preliminary determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council submitted Amendment 28 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by February 22, 2016, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 28. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is issuing this notice to publish the sugar Overall Allotment Quantity (OAQ), beet and cane sugar marketing allotments, and processor allocations for fiscal year (FY) 2016 (October 1, 2015-September 30, 2016), as well as a summary of the OAQ's, sugar marketing allotments, and allocations for FY 2015 and FY 2014. Although the actions in this notice have already been announced through United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) news releases, each determination establishing, adjusting, or suspending sugar marketing allotments issued by the Secretary is required by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to be published in the
Effective: December 24, 2015.
Barb Fecso, telephone: (202) 720-4146. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).
Section 359c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Pub. L. 75-430), as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359cc) requires that the OAQ be established at not less than 85 percent of the estimated quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for the crop year, and that fixed percentages of the OAQ be assigned to the beet sector and cane sector, and further allocated to the States in the cane sector. In a September 29, 2015 news release, CCC established the FY 2016 (2015-crop year) OAQ at the minimum quantity of 10,093,750 short tons, raw value (STRV). CCC distributed the FY 2016 beet sugar allotment of 5,485,953 STRV (54.35 percent of the OAQ) to the beet sugar processors and the cane sugar allotment of 4,607,797 STRV (45.65 percent of the OAQ) to the sugarcane states and processors.
The FY 2016 (2015-crop year) beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments and allocations to date are listed in the following table:
On September 26, 2014, CCC announced the initial FY 2015 OAQ of 9,987,500 STRV, the distribution of the FY 2015 beet sugar allotment of 5,428,206 STRV (54.35 percent of the OAQ) to sugar beet processors, and the distribution of the 4,559,294 STRV cane sugar allotment (45.65 percent of the OAQ) to sugarcane states and processors.
In mid-year, CCC reviewed current inventories, estimated production, expected marketings, and other factors affecting each sugar beet or sugarcane processor's ability to market its full allocation. On May 4, 2015 CCC announced an increase in the FY 2015 OAQ to 10,080,150 STRV, which was 85 percent of the estimate for domestic human consumption published in the April 2015 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report (WASDE). CCC also announced the reassignment of projected surplus beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments and allocations under the FY 2015 Sugar Marketing Allotment Program. The reassignment, which transferred allocations from processors with surplus allocation to processors with deficit allocation, was expected to increase the available supply of domestically-produced refined beet sugar.
As part of the domestic Sugar Program, CCC is required to reassign allocation to raw cane sugar imports if it is determined that processors will be unable to market their allocations and there is no CCC inventory. Data supplied by the processors in April 2015 indicated that the beet sugar sector would be unable to market 400,000 STRV of its current sugar marketing allotment, while the raw cane sugar sector would be unable to market 600,000 STRV of its sugar marketing allotment. Therefore, the allotments were reduced to 5,078,562 STRV for beet sugar and 4,001,588 STRV for cane sugar, while 1,000,000 STRV was reassigned to raw cane sugar imports already displayed in the WASDE report. This reassignment to imports was merely an accounting effort to comply with Sugar Program requirements as specified in 7 U.S.C. 1359ee and was not an increase in the raw sugar tariff-rate quota.
On August 28, 2015, CCC announced a second reassignment of projected FY 2015 surplus beet sugar marketing allocation among beet processors and a reassignment of projected surplus cane sugar marketing allocation among cane processors. CCC transferred beet sugar marketing allocations from beet sugar processors with surplus allocation to another beet processor requiring more allocation to market its record high crop. Similarly, CCC transferred cane sugar marketing allocation from two sugar processors in Florida with surplus allocation to another processor requiring more allocation to market its larger-than-expected crop.
The FY 2015 (2014-crop) beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments and allocations are listed in the following table:
On August 30, 2013, CCC announced the initial FY 2014 OAQ of 9,843,000 STRV, the distribution of the FY 2014 beet sugar allotment of 5,349,671 STRV (54.35 percent of the OAQ) to sugar beet processors, and the distribution of the 4,493,330 STRV cane sugar allotment (45.65 percent of the OAQ) to sugarcane states and processors.
In a May 30, 2014 news release, CCC announced the reassignment of projected surplus beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments and allocations under the FY 2014 Sugar Marketing Allotment Program. The reassignment, which transferred allocations from processors with surplus allocation to processors with deficit allocation, was expected to increase the supply of domestically-produced sugar.
Data supplied by the processors indicated that the beet sugar sector would be unable to market 100,000 STRV of its sugar marketing allotment, while the raw cane sugar sector would be unable to market 550,000 STRV of its sugar marketing allotment. Hence, the allotments were reduced to 5,249,671 STRV for beet sugar and 3,943,330 STRV for cane sugar, while 650,000 STRV was reassigned to raw cane sugar imports already expected in the WASDE report. This reassignment to imports was merely an accounting effort to comply with the Sugar Program requirements as specified in 7 U.S.C. 1359ee and was not an increase in the raw sugar tariff-rate quota.
The FY 2014 (2013-crop) beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments and allocations are listed in the following table:
15 U.S.C. 714b and 7 U.S.C. 1359hh(c).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by February 22, 2016.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Fax: (202) 720-8435.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires 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 RUS is submitting to OMB as a revision to an existing collection. 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, Room 5164, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax: (202) 720-8435.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660, Fax: (202) 720-8435.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by February 22, 2016.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Fax: (202) 720-8435.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires 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 RUS is submitting to OMB as a revision to an existing collection. 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, Room 5164, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax: (202) 720-8435.
This collection of information covers the Telecommunications Operating Report, the Broadband Operating Report, and RUS Form 674, “Certificate of Authority to Submit or Grant Access to Data.” The data collected via the Telecommunications Operating Report is collected through the USDA Data Collection System. The data collected via the Broadband Operating Report is collected through the USDA Broadband Collection and Analysis System. The data collected via the Telecommunication and Broadband Operating reports is required by the loan contract and provides Rural Development with vital financial information necessary to ensure the maintenance of the security for the Government's loans, and statistical data to enable the Agency to ensure the provision of quality telecommunications and broadband services as mandated by the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936. The data collected through the operating reports provides financial information to ensure loan security consistent with due diligence and is essential to protect loan security.
The data collected via RUS Form 674 provides information to the Agency to allow Rural Development Electric, Telecommunications and Broadband program Borrowers to file electronic Operating Reports with the Agency using the USDA Data Collection System. RUS Form 674, accompanied by a Board Resolution, identifies the name and USDA eAuthentication ID for a certifier and security administrator who will have access to the USDA Data Collection System for purposes of filing electronic Operating Reports. The information collected on the RUS Form 674 is submitted in hard copy by Borrowers only when revisions are required or, in the case of a first time Borrower, when initially submitting the data.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660, Fax: (202) 720-8435. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Through the BAS, the Census Bureau asks each government to review materials for its jurisdiction to verify the correctness of the information portrayed. The Census Bureau requests that each government update their boundaries, supply information documenting each legal boundary change, and provide changes in the inventory of governments. The Census Bureau has a national implementation of the BAS, but each state's laws are reviewed for inclusion in the processing procedures. In addition, if it comes to the Census Bureau's attention that an area of non-tribal land is in dispute between two or more jurisdictions, the Census Bureau will not make annexations or boundary corrections until the parties come to a written agreement, or there is a documented final court decision regarding the matter and/or dispute. If there is a dispute over an area of tribal land, the Census Bureau will not make additions or boundary corrections until supporting documents are provided, or the U.S. Department of the Interior issues a comment. If necessary, the Census Bureau will request clarification regarding current boundaries, particularly if supporting documentation pre-dates 1990, from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor.
The BAS universe and mailing materials vary depending both upon the needs of the Census Bureau in fulfilling its censuses and household surveys and upon budget constraints.
Counties or equivalent entities, federally recognized American Indian reservations (AIRs), Off-Reservation Trust Lands (ORTLs), and Tribal Subdivisions are included in every survey.
In the years ending in 8, 9 and 0, the BAS includes all governmentally active counties and equivalent entities, incorporated places, legally defined MCDs, and legally defined federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native areas (including the Alaska Native Regional Corporations). Each governmental entity surveyed will receive materials covering its jurisdiction and one or more forms. These three years coincide with the Census Bureau's preparation for the Decennial Census. There are fewer than 40,000 governments in the universe each year.
In all other years, the BAS reporting universe includes all legally defined federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native areas, all governmental counties and equivalent entities, MCDs in the six New England States (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), and those incorporated places that have a population of 2,500 or greater. The reporting universe is approximately 14,000 governments due to budget constraints at the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau only follows up on a subset of governments designated as the reporting universe.
In the years ending in 1 through 7, the Census Bureau may enter into agreements with individual states to modify the universe of MCDs and/or incorporated places to include additional entities that are known by that state to have had boundary changes, without regard to population size. Each year, the BAS will also include a single respondent request for municipio, barrio, barrio-pueblo, and subbarrio boundary and status information in Puerto Rico and Hawaiian Homeland boundary and status information in Hawaii.
In the years ending in 6 through 9, state participants in the RDP may request coordination between the BAS and RDP submissions for the Block Boundary Suggestion Project (BBSP) and Voting District Project (VTDP). The alignment of the BAS with the BBSP and VTDP will facilitate increased cooperation between state and local governments and provide the opportunity to align their effort with updates from state and local government officials participating in the BAS.
No other Federal agency collects these data, nor is there a standard collection of this information at the state level. BAS is a unique survey providing a standard result for use by federal, state, local, and tribal governments and by commercial, private, and public organizations.
The Census Bureau has developed and continues to use several methods to collect information on status and updates for legal boundaries. These methods are:
Through the BAS State Certification program, the Census Bureau invites the Governor-appointed State Certifying Official (SCO) from each state to review the boundary and governmental unit information collected during the previous BAS cycle. The purpose of the State Certification program is to verify the accuracy and validate the BAS information with state governments for incorporated places received from the previous BAS cycle. The Census Bureau requests the SCOs review data files, including the attribute data, legal boundary changes, as well as the legal names and functional statuses of incorporated places and MCDs, and any new incorporations or disincorporations reported through the BAS. A SCO may request that the Census Bureau edit the attribute data, add missing records, or remove invalid records if their state government maintains an official record of all effective changes to legal boundaries and governmental units as mandated by state law. State Certification packages contain a letter to the Governor, a State Certifying Official Letter, a Discrepancy Letter, and a State Certification Respondent Guide.
In states with legislation requiring local governments to report all legal boundary updates to a state agency, state officials may enter into a MOU with the Census Bureau. States have the option to report to the Census Bureau the list of governments with known legal boundary changes and the Census Bureau will include in the BAS only those governments with known boundary changes or the state may report the legal boundary changes directly to the Census Bureau on behalf of the governments. The Census Bureau will not survey the local governments if the state reports for them. The Census Bureau will send a reminder email notification to the governments requesting them to report to the state contact, per MOU. The MOU, as agreed upon by the state and the Census Bureau, will outline the terms of the survey and reporting for governments.
Consolidation agreements allow state and county government officials, in states where there are no legislative requirements for local governments to report their legal updates to the state or county, the opportunity to reduce the response burden for their local governments. Under a consolidation agreement, a state or county responds to the BAS for the local governments that agree to allow the state or county to respond on their behalf. The Census Bureau sends the BAS materials to the state or county, as appropriate, and sends a reminder notification to the local government to report their updates to their BAS consolidator.
Annual Response involves an announcement email letter and a one-page form for the state and county governments that do not have a consolidation agreement. Through Annual Response, county, tribal, and local governments indicate whether they have boundary changes to report and provide a current contact person. The Census Bureau requests governments to reply online or through email. The Annual Response method reduces cost and respondent burden through savings on materials and effort. All governments receive this notification regardless of population size. The Census Bureau will conduct telephone follow-up only to governments in the reporting universe due to budget constraints.
If a government requests materials through Annual Response, they may choose to download digital materials or have the materials shipped as a traditional paper package or digital media types.
For the traditional paper package, the respondent completes the BAS form and draws the boundary updates on the maps using pencils provided in the package. The package contains large format maps, printed forms and supplies to complete the survey.
The typical BAS package contains:
1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau;
2. Appropriate BAS Form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information;
a. BAS-1: Incorporated places and consolidated cities;
b. BAS-2: Counties, parishes, and boroughs;
c. BAS-3: MCDs;
d. BAS-5: American Indian and Alaska Native Areas; and
e. BAS-6: Consolidated BAS
3. BAS Respondent Guide;
4. Set of maps;
5. Return postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes;
6. Postcard to notify the Census Bureau of no changes to the boundary; and
7. Supplies for updating paper maps.
Digital BAS includes options to receive software and spatial data to make boundary updates or to make boundary updates electronically by submitting a digital file. A local contact from each government verifies the legal boundary, and then provides boundary changes and updated contact information. An official signs the materials, verifies the forms, and returns the information to the Census Bureau.
The typical Digital BAS package contains:
1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau;
2. Appropriate BAS Form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information;
a. BAS-1: Incorporated places and consolidated cities;
b. BAS-2: Counties, parishes, and boroughs;
c. BAS-3: MCDs;
d. BAS-5: American Indian and Alaska Native Areas; and
e. BAS-6: Consolidated BAS
3. CD or DVD and software CD for Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS); and
4. Postcard to notify the Census Bureau of no changes to the boundary.
The key dates for governments are as follows:
1. Annual Response emailed or mailed to the local contact in December of each year.
2. BAS package/materials shipped during the months of December, January, February, March, and April of each year.
3. Requests to change the method of participation (
4. Responses for inclusion in the American Community Survey (ACS) and Population Estimates Program (PEP) are due by March 1st of each year, with an effective date of January 1st of the year in question or earlier.
5. Responses for inclusion in the following year's BAS materials are due by May 31st of each year and will include any annexation received from the previous or current year.
6. In year 2020, all legal documentation for inclusion in the 2020 Census must be effective as of January 1, 2020 or earlier. All legal boundary changes will be placed on hold and updated during the 2021 BAS if effective January 2, 2020 or later.
To improve boundary quality in the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System, the Census Bureau is introducing BQARP to support the BAS program. BQARP is a project to assess, analyze, and improve the spatial quality of legal and administrative boundaries within MAF/TIGER. Ensuring quality boundaries is a critical component of the geographic preparations for the 2020 Census and the Census Bureau's ongoing Geographic Partnership Programs (GPPs) and surveys. In addition, the improvement of boundary quality is an essential element of the Census Bureau's commitment as the responsible agency for legal boundaries under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. The goal of BQARP is to establish a new, accurate baseline for boundaries within an entire state or county, which the BAS would then continue with the collection of annexations and deannexations on a transaction basis as they occur over time. The estimated work burden for participation is 25 hours per participant.
BAS continues to work to improve the survey based on feedback received from local governments. The Census Bureau plans to conduct two research projects during 2016. The first research project is for BAS form redesign for potential use for the 2017 BAS Forms. The second research project is to test an option for local governments to provide a list of addresses associated with an annexation to continue to improve data quality in MAF/TIGER. Participation is voluntary for these research projects. The estimated work burden for participation is 3 hours per participant.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”) for the period of review June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.
Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2243.
On June 30, 2015, DAK Americas, LLC (“Petitioner”) submitted a request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from the PRC for five companies.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, Petitioner withdrew its requests for administrative reviews within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of PSF from the PRC. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
George McMahon or Samuel Brummitt, 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) 482-1167 or (202) 482-7851, respectively.
On July 1, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Given that all the withdrawal requests cited above were timely, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy, in part, with respect to Andalini, Azienda, Bolognese, I Sapori, La Molisana, La Romagna, Pasta Lensi, Ser.com.snc, and Vero Lucano. The instant review will continue with respect to Agritalia, Atar, Corticella, Delverde, Domenico, F. Divella, Colavita, La Fabbrica, Ligouri, Molino, P.A.P, PAM, Pasta Zara, Carmine, DiMartino, Fabianelli, Felicetti, Labor, Riscossa, Poiatti, Premiato, and Rustichella.
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, Andalini, Azienda, Bolognese, I Sapori, La Molisana, La Romagna, Pasta Lensi, Ser.com.snc, and Vero Lucano, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of a revised incidental harassment authorization.
We, NMFS, give notice that we have revised an Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) issued to Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting seabird research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore in central California. Point Blue's current Authorization is effective until January 30, 2016, and authorizes the incidental harassment, by Level B harassment only, of approximately 9,871 California sea lions (
The authorization is still effective January 31, 2015, through January 30, 2016.
To obtain an electronic copy of the revised Authorization, write to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone the contact listed here (see
Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.
On December 23, 2014, NMFS published a
On September 22, 2015, NMFS received a request from Point Blue seeking to revise the Authorization issued on January 31, 2015 (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015) to increase the number of authorized take of small numbers of California sea lions from approximately 9,871 to a total of 44,871 for the duration of the current Authorization which expires on January 30, 2016. Current environmental conditions in the Pacific Ocean offshore California—which researchers have attributed to an impending El Nino event—have contributed to unprecedented numbers of California sea lions hauled out in areas where Point Blue conducts seabird surveys. As such, Point Blue requested a modification to their current Authorization to increase the number of authorized take for California sea lions to continue their seabird research activities. This was the only requested change to the current Authorization.
On October 13, 2015, NMFS published a notice (80 FR 61376) requesting comments on the proposed revision. The
Point Blue will continue to monitor and census seabird colonies; observe seabird nesting habitat; restore nesting burrows; and resupply a field station annually in central California (
NMFS outlined the purpose of Point Blue's activities in a previous notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014). Point Blue's activities and level of survey effort have not changed since the publication of the
The Authorization requires Point Blue to monitor for marine mammals in order to implement mitigation measures to effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals. Monitoring activities consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the research areas. The monitoring reports provide dates, location, species, and the researcher's activities. The reports will also include the behavioral state of marine mammals present, numbers of animals that moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water. Between January 31 through November 6, 2015, Point Blue recorded the following instances of Level B harassment for the following research areas: Southeast Farallon Island/West End Island (20,052); Ano Nuevo (723); and Point Reyes (30).
Point Blue reports that between January and March, 2015, California sea lion incidental take patterns were relatively normal at the South Farallon Islands/West End Island survey locations. However, during the summer
We published a notice of receipt of the proposed revised Authorization in the
NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation and the revised Authorization includes only those takes for California sea lions related to seabird research and resupply activities. Point Blue requested an increase of 35,000 takes based on rough preliminary observations. However, during the MMPA consultation process, Point Blue provided us with draft monitoring reports with more accurate estimates of California sea lions harassed incidental to seabird research activities from September 23, 2015 through November 6, 2015 (approximately 20,805 animals). We further analyzed those preliminary reports and projected that Point Blue could harass an additional 21,084 California sea lions for the remainder of the current authorization. Thus, the revised Authorization for a total of 41,899 takes for California sea lions accounts for an additional 32,018 takes versus the Point Blue's requested increase of 35,000 takes.
We base these estimates on the largest estimated number of California sea lions taken by day within four reporting periods between January 31, 2015 and November 6, 2015 multiplied by 84 days remaining within the current Authorization. The resulting take estimates are 20,664 California sea lions for Southeast Farallon Island (9,334 animals divided by 38 days then multiplied by 84 days); 336 California sea lions for Ano Nuevo Island (554 animals divided by 156 days then multiplied by 84 days); and 84 California sea lion for (10 animals divided by 38 days then multiplied by 84 days). Based on our final analyses, NMFS would authorize an total 41,889 takes for California sea lions which accounts for take already incurred and the potential for increased take continuing through January 2016.
The revised Authorization also directs Point Blue and its partners to conduct other activities related to preventing damage to critical infrastructure and private property and ensuring personal human safety from hauled out pinnipeds in accordance with sections 101(a)(4) or 109(h) of the MMPA.
With the exception of a proposed increase in the number of authorized takes for California sea lions, no other substantive changes have occurred in the interim. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from Point Blue's survey activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As a result of these determinations, we have revised the Authorization
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is providing notification that the agency will not identify additional fisheries to observe on the Annual Determination (AD) for 2016, pursuant to its authority under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through the AD, NMFS identifies U.S. fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean that will be required to take observers upon NMFS' request. The purpose of observing identified fisheries is to learn more about sea turtle interactions in a given fishery, evaluate measures to prevent or reduce sea turtle takes, and implement the prohibition against sea turtle takes. Fisheries identified on the 2015 AD (see Table 1) remain on the AD for a 5-year period and are required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until December 31, 2019.
See
Sara McNulty, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402; Ellen Keane, Greater Atlantic Region, 978-282-8476; Dennis Klemm, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Dan Lawson, West Coast Region, 562-980-3209; Irene Kelly, Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5141. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Information regarding the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement for Fisheries (72 FR 43176, August 3, 2007) may be obtained at
• NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930;
• NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
• NMFS, West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802;
• NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531
Incidental take, or bycatch, in fishing gear is the primary anthropogenic source of sea turtle injury and mortality in U.S. waters. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take (including harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct), including incidental take, of endangered sea turtles. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 223.205 and 223.206). The purpose of the sea turtle observer requirement and the AD is ultimately to implement ESA sections 9 and 4(d), which prohibit the incidental take of endangered and threatened sea turtles, respectively, and to conserve sea turtles. Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for anyone who violates a regulation issued pursuant to the ESA, including regulations that implement the take prohibition, as well as for the issuance of regulations to enforce the take prohibitions. NMFS may grant exceptions to the take prohibitions for activities that are covered by an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to ESA section 7 or 10, respectively. To do so, NMFS must determine the activity that will result in incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected listed species. For some Federal fisheries and most state fisheries, NMFS has not granted an exception for incidental takes of sea turtles primarily because we lack information about fishery-sea turtle interactions.
The most effective way for NMFS to learn about sea turtle-fishery interactions, in order to implement management measures and prevent or minimize take, is to place observers aboard fishing vessels. In 2007, NMFS issued a regulation (50 CFR 222.402) establishing procedures to annually identify, pursuant to specified criteria and after notice and opportunity for comment, those fisheries in which the agency intends to place observers (72 FR 43176, August 3, 2007). These regulations specify that NMFS may place observers on U.S. fishing vessels, commercial or recreational, operating in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or on the high seas, or on vessels that are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements under this rule may result in civil or criminal penalties under the ESA.
Where observers are required, NMFS will pay the direct costs for vessels to
Pursuant to 50 CFR 222.402, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), in consultation with Regional Administrators and Fisheries Science Center Directors, annually identifies fisheries for inclusion on the AD based on the extent to which:
(1) The fishery operates in the same waters and at the same time as sea turtles are present;
(2) The fishery operates at the same time or prior to elevated sea turtle strandings; or
(3) The fishery uses a gear or technique that is known or likely to result in incidental take of sea turtles based on documented or reported takes in the same or similar fisheries; and
(4) NMFS intends to monitor the fishery and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so.
NMFS is providing notification that the agency is not identifying additional fisheries to observe on the 2016 AD, pursuant to its authority under the ESA. NMFS is not identifying additional fisheries at this time given lack of dedicated resources to implement new observer programs or expand existing observer programs to focus on sea turtles (50 CFR 222.402(a)(4)). The 14 fisheries identified on the 2015 AD (see Table 1) remain on the AD for a 5-year period and are therefore required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until December 31, 2019.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 10 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel (AP) plans to review Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan related to the Acceptable Biological Catch control rule, and the localized depletion in inshore waters. The panel will also discuss the potential for using
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a pilot program (Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program) in which an applicant, under certain conditions, can request a 12-month time period to pay the search fee, the examination fee, any excess claim fees, and the surcharge (for the late submission of the search fee and the examination fee) in a nonprovisional application. The Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program benefits applicants by permitting additional time to determine if patent protection should be sought—at a relatively low cost—and by permitting applicants to focus efforts on commercialization during this period. The Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program benefits the USPTO and the public by adding publications to the body of prior art, and by removing from the USPTO's workload those nonprovisional applications for which applicants later decide not to pursue examination. The USPTO is extending the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program until December 31, 2016, to allow for the USPTO to seek public comment, via a subsequent notice to be published in the middle of 2016, on whether the Extended Missing Parts Program offers sufficient benefits to the patent community for it to be made permanent. The requirements of the program have not changed.
Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7727, or by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Eugenia A. Jones.
Inquiries regarding this notice may be directed to the Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at (571) 272-7701, or by electronic mail at
On December 8, 2010, after considering written comments from the public, the USPTO changed the missing parts examination procedures in certain nonprovisional applications by implementing a pilot program (
Through this notice, the USPTO is further extending the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program until December 31, 2016. The USPTO may further extend the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, or may discontinue the pilot program after December 31, 2016, depending on the results of the program. The requirements of the program, which have not been modified, are reiterated below. Applicants are strongly cautioned to review the pilot program requirements before making a request to participate in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program.
The USPTO cautions all applicants that, in order to claim the benefit of a prior provisional application, the statute requires a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to be filed within 12 months after the date on which the corresponding provisional application was filed.
I.
As required for all nonprovisional applications, the applicant will need to satisfy filing date requirements and publication requirements. In the rulemaking to implement the PLT and title II of the PLTIA, the Office provided that an application (other than an application for a design patent) filed on or after December 18, 2013, is not required to include a claim to be entitled to a filing date.
As noted above, applicants should request participation in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program by using Form PTO/AIA/421. For utility patent applications, the applicant may file the application and the certification and request electronically using the USPTO electronic filing system, EFS-Web, and selecting the document description of “Certification and Request for Missing Parts Pilot” for the certification and request on the EFS-Web screen. Form PTO/AIA/421 is available on the USPTO Web site at
The utility application including the certification and request to participate in the pilot program may also be hand-carried to the USPTO or filed by mail, for example, by Priority Mail Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10. However, applicants are advised that, effective November 15, 2011, as provided in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, a new additional fee of $400.00 for a non-small entity ($200.00 for a small entity) is due for any nonprovisional utility patent application that is not filed by EFS-Web.
For plant patent applications, the applicant must file the application including the certification and request to participate in the pilot program by mail or hand-carried to the USPTO since plant patent applications cannot be filed electronically using EFS-Web.
II.
For a detailed discussion regarding treatment of applications that are not in condition for publication, processing of improper requests to participate in the program, and treatment of authorizations to charge fees,
III.
Furthermore, the nonprovisional application as originally filed must have a complete disclosure that complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and is sufficient to support the claims submitted on filing and any claims submitted later during prosecution. New matter cannot be added to an application after the filing date of the application.
Applicants are also advised that the extended missing parts period does not affect the 12-month priority period provided by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). Accordingly, any foreign filings must, in most cases, still be made within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application if the applicant wishes to rely on the provisional application in the foreign-filed application or if protection is desired in a country requiring filing within 12 months of the earliest application for which rights are left outstanding in order to be entitled to priority.
For additional reminders,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed revision to the collection of certain information by the Commission. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by “OMB Control No. 3038-0090; Records of Commodity Interest and Related Cash or Forward Transactions Collection,” by any of the following methods:
• The Commission's Web site, via its Comments Online process at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Katherine Driscoll, Associate Chief Counsel, (202) 418-5544,
The Final Rule amends Regulation 1.35(a). The collections of information related to Regulation 1.35(a) have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed revision to the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed revision to the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Pursuant to the prior version of Regulation 1.35(a), which was published in 2012, Unregistered Members were required to keep written communications that lead to the execution of a commodity interest transaction and related cash or forward transactions.
Pursuant to the prior version of Regulation 1.35(a), which was published in 2012, Unregistered Members were required to comply with the form and manner requirements of the rule.
The records that must be kept under Regulation 1.35 include text messages, as well as other forms of electronic records. The Final Rule amends Regulation 1.35(a) to provide that Unregistered Members are not required to maintain records of text messages.
Pursuant to the Final Rule, CTAs will no longer be required to record oral communications.
Pursuant to the Final Rule, all records required to be kept under Regulation 1.35(a) must be kept in a form and manner which permit prompt, accurate and reliable location, access, and retrieval of any particular record, data, or information. In addition, the Final Rule also states that all records, except records of oral and written communications leading to the execution of a transaction in a commodity interest and related cash or forward transactions, must be kept in a form and manner that allows for identification of a particular transaction. These new requirements replace the former requirement in the previous version of the rule that required records be “identifiable and searchable by transaction.” The Commission views these revised form and manner requirements as a clarification of the prior requirements. Accordingly, the revised form and manner requirements do not increase or decrease the information collection burden for market participants that are subject to Regulation 1.35(a).
The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 25, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 25, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) has been completed and is available for review and comment.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we have filed the Draft EIS with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for publication of their notice of availability in the
A public meeting for this Draft EIS will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center, El Toro Room, 17000 Monterey Street, Morgan Hill, California 95037. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide the public the opportunity to comment, either orally or in writing, on the Draft EIS. Notification of the meeting will be announced following same format as the Scoping Meetings announcements.
The Draft EIS can be viewed online at:
Copies of the Draft EIS are also available for review at the following libraries:
Ms. Tori White, Acting Chief, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 1455 Market Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, California 94103-1398, Telephone: 415-503-6768, Fax: 415-503-6795.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) proposes to construct flood conveyance features and to deepen and widen Upper Llagas Creek in Santa Clara County, California. The action area identified in the Draft EIS includes 6.1 miles of the mainstem of Llagas, 2.8 miles along West Little Llagas Creek; and, 3.4 miles along a tributary of Llagas Creek, known as East Little Llagas Creek. An additional 1.6 miles of new channel would also be constructed along West Little Llagas Creek to Llagas Creek. Additionally, wetland creation and stream restoration also requires construction in waters of the US and includes filling an abandoned quarry
Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Education.
Notice of altered and deleted systems of records under the Privacy Act of 1974.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice to amend the systems of records entitled “Debarment and Suspension Proceedings under Executive Order (EO) 12549, the Drug-Free Workplace Act, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)” (18-03-01)(Debarment and Suspension Proceedings system) and “Education's Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS)” (18-03-02). The Department deletes two systems of records entitled “Receivables Management System” (18-03-03) and the “Travel Manager System” (18-03-05) from its existing inventory of systems of records subject to the Privacy Act.
For the Debarment and Suspension Proceedings system, this notice updates the system location; the authority for maintenance of the system; the routine uses of records maintained in the system; the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system (specifically the retention and disposal of system records); the safeguards that protect the records in the system; and the system managers and addresses.
For the EDCAPS system, this notice updates the system location; the categories of individuals covered by the system; the categories of records in the system; the authority for maintenance of the system; purposes of the system; the routine uses of records maintained in the system; the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system; and the system managers and addresses.
The Department identifies the system of records “Receivables Management System” (18-03-03), as published in the
Submit your comments on this notice of altered and deleted systems of records on or before January 25, 2016.
The Department filed a report describing the alterations to the Debarment and Suspension Proceedings and the EDCAPS systems of records with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on [DRS/OGC WILL INSERT DATE TRANSMITTAL LETTERS ARE SENT]. The alterations to the Debarment and Suspension Proceedings and EDCAPS systems of records will become effective at the later date of (1) The expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on [DRS WILL INSERT DATE 40 DAYS AFTER THE DATE TRANSMITTAL LETTERS ARE SENT], unless OMB waives 10 days of the 40-day review period for compelling reasons shown by the Department; or (2) January 25, 2016, unless the altered Debarment and Suspension Proceedings or EDCAPS systems of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review.
Address all comments about the Debarment and Suspension Proceedings system to Philip A. Maestri, Director, Risk Management Service, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20202-5970. If you prefer to send comments by email, use the following address:
You must include the term “Debarment and Suspension Proceedings” in the subject line of your email.
Address all comments about the EDCAPS system to Greg Robison, Director, Financial Systems Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., PCP, Room 9150, Washington, DC 20202-1100. If you prefer to send comments by email, use the following address:
You must include the term “EDCAPS” in the subject line of your email.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice at the U.S. Department of Education between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. To inspect the public comments, contact the appropriate persons listed under
On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. To schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under
For Debarment and Suspension Proceedings, Philip A. Maestri, Director, Risk Management Service, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 245-8278.
For EDCAPS, Greg Robison, Director, Financial Systems Services, OCIO, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., PCP, room 9150, Washington, DC 20202-1100. Telephone: (202) 245-7187.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
The Privacy Act requires the Department to publish in the
The Privacy Act applies to a record about an individual that contains individually identifying information that is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or Social Security number (SSN). The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer based, is called a “system of records.”
Whenever the Department makes a significant change to an established system of records, the Privacy Act requires the Department to publish a notice of an altered system of records in the
A change to a system of records is considered to be a significant change that must be reported whenever an agency expands the types or categories of information maintained, significantly expands the number, types, or categories of individuals about whom records are maintained, changes the purpose for which the information is used, changes the equipment configuration in a way that creates substantially greater access to the records, or adds a routine use disclosure to the system.
Since the last publication of the Debarment and Suspension Proceedings system of records in the
This notice alters the system of records to update: (1) The system locations to reflect the Department's decisions to move the general, non-procurement debarment and suspension records to the Grants Policy and Procedures Team, Risk Management Service, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20202-1100 and to add the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 490 E. L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 2100A, Washington, DC 20202-4616, as a location of debarment and suspension records maintained on principals of institutions of higher education, principals of lenders, and principals of guarantee agencies; (2) the authority for maintenance of the system by inserting the correct CFR references (2 CFR parts 180 and 3485—OMB Guidelines and the Department's Regulations on Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)) and 34 CFR part 84—Department's Regulations on the Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance); (3) the routine uses of records maintained in the system by adding a routine use to clarify that disclosures may be made in the course of the Department's debarment or suspension proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings to any business entity, organization, individual, or the legal representative thereof who is involved in such proceedings; (4) the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system, specifically by updating the paragraph on storage to include electronic records and a Web-based portal that are maintained by the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Management, and by adding the following text in the paragraph on the retention and disposal of system records: “Records relating to debarment and suspension actions under EO 12549 are retained in accordance with Department of Education Records Disposition Schedule No. 215, `Analysis and Inspection (A & I) Records' Item 4(c)). These records are retained for eight years from the end of the fiscal year in which the case is closed, and then they are destroyed. Records relating to all other debarment and suspension actions are currently unscheduled, pending approval of applicable records retention schedules by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). These records will not be destroyed until applicable NARA-approved records retention schedules are in effect”; (5) the safeguards for system to include safeguards that protect electronic records maintained by the Office of Hearings and Appeals and the Office of Management; and (6) the system managers and their addresses to reflect needed updates.
Since the last publication of the EDCAPS system of records in the
The changes in the notice for EDCAPS are numerous.
First, we are revising the system numbering and system location to reflect the renumbering of the system from 18-03-02 to 18-04-04 and to reflect the change in the office in charge of managing the system from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and the changes in the locations of the Department's buildings.
Second, we are updating the paragraph in the EDCAPS notice describing the categories of individuals covered by the system to include:
• Peer reviewers.
• Individuals providing goods to the Department.
• Persons billed by the Department for materials and services (such as for Freedom of Information Act requests).
• Persons ordered by a court of law to pay restitution to the Department.
• Individuals who have received funds through the Rehabilitation Services Administration Scholarship program and who have not provided evidence of fulfilling their obligations under that program.
• Current and former Department employees who received overpayments and the overpayments have not been waived by the Department.
• Individuals who were overpaid or inappropriately paid under grant programs administered by the Department other than title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
• Individuals against whom the Department has claims for Federal funds.
We are making these additions because the records on individuals who are covered by the Receivables Management System are maintained in EDCAPS and because OCIO is keeping peer reviewer information in EDCAPS.
Third, we are updating the paragraph in the EDCAPS notice describing the categories of records in the system to include: telephone number, a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number provided by Dun & Bradstreet, date of birth, email address, and banking information. Some of these additions are items that were accidentally omitted from the original system of records notice, while others are additional records that were not collected when the original notice was published.
Fourth, we are updating the authority for maintenance of the EDCAPS system to include section 415 of the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88, 20 U.S.C. 3475); 31 U.S.C. 3321 (note); 31 U.S.C. 3512 (including the note) and 3515; 31 U.S.C. 7504; 31 U.S.C. 902(a); EO 9397 (8 FR 16095) as amended by EO 13478 (73 FR 70239), and 31 U.S.C. 7701 (TIN); Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards issued by the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; and 31 U.S.C. 3711-3720E. The original notice omitted these authorities. We are deleting the statutory citation to 44 U.S.C. 301 in the former notice because its inclusion was erroneous.
Fifth, we are expanding the purposes of the EDCAPS system to “maintain financial and management records associated with the fiscal operations of the Department and other entities with contracting authority that use EDCAPS.” The purposes have been updated as well to include investigating complaints, updating information, correcting errors and investigating fraud, preventing improper payments, carrying out the receivables management function and safeguarding public funds, preparing financial statements and other financial documents, and determining qualifications of individuals for selection as grant application peer reviewers.
We are also updating the purposes of the Financial Management Software System module to include a description of system capabilities to support these activities that did not exist when the original EDCAPS notice was published.
We are updating the Contracts and Purchasing Support System description to include a reference to a commercial software product used to provide the procurement functionality.
Finally, we are removing the description of the Recipient System since the Recipient System has been merged with the Grants Management System (G5), which was formally called Grants Administration and Payment System (GAPS).
Sixth, we are updating the routine uses of records maintained in the system to include a number of uses that are a combination of both standard routine uses that are included in most System of Record Notices across the Department, and unique routine uses that are needed for EDCAPS to function, and are relevant only to EDCAPS. These additions will permit the disclosure of records:
• To OMB for purposes of the Credit Reform Act, which was enacted to require agencies to provide a more realistic assessment of the cost of U.S. Government direct loans and loan guarantees;
• For employee grievance, complaint, disciplinary, or competency determination proceedings;
• To labor organizations for purposes of exclusive representation or to an arbitrator to resolve disputes under a negotiated grievance procedure;
• For research purposes when the Department determines that an individual or organization is qualified to carry out specific research concerning functions or purposes related to the system of records;
• To the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Federal Reserve Bank to facilitate payments to payees of the Department or to prevent improper payments;
• To the U.S. Department of the Interior to facilitate payroll preparation;
• To private collection companies and Federal agencies to ensure the Department is able to meet its fiduciary responsibilities related to collecting monies legally owed to the Department, which were routine uses of the Receivables Management System (18-03-03); and
• To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in EDCAPS has been compromised, (b) there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of EDCAPS or other systems or programs, and (c) the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist the Department in responding to the suspected or confirmed compromise and in preventing, minimizing, or remedying such harm.
Seventh, we are updating the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system to include storage of data in hard copy and a computer database. We are also updating the description of safeguards to include additional security measures, including monitoring by security personnel and the certification and accreditation of the system's security posture. Further, we are updating the retention and disposal policy to comply with the General Records Schedule approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Eighth, we are updating the description of the system manager and the address of the system manager to reflect that there is only a single system manager.
Finally, we are updating the record source categories to add Federal, State, and local government agencies as entities from which the Department may receive records.
The Department identifies the system of records “Receivables Management System” (18-03-03), as published in the
The Department also identifies the system of records “Travel Manager System” (18-03-05), as published in the
You may also access documents of the Department by using the article search feature at:
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Information Officer of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) deletes, amends, or alters the following systems of records:
18-03-01
Debarment and Suspension Proceedings under Executive Order (EO) 12549, the Drug-Free Workplace Act, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
None.
For records regarding debarment and suspension actions under:
The system covers principals undergoing debarment or suspension proceedings and principals that have been debarred or suspended under either EO 12549, the Drug-Free Workplace Act, title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), or the Federal Acquisition Regulation. For the purposes of EO 12549, and the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the term “principal” is defined in the Department's regulations at 2 CFR 3485.995 and includes an officer, director, owner, partner, or other person who is in a position to handle Federal funds, or influence or control those funds or occupies a professional or technical position capable of substantially influencing the development or outcome of an activity required to perform a covered transaction. For purposes of transactions made under title IV of the HEA, the term “principal” also includes a third-party servicer and any person who provides services described in 34 CFR 668.2 or 682.200 to a title IV, HEA participant, whether or not that person is retained or paid directly by the title IV, HEA participant. A “participant” is defined in 2 CFR 180.980 as any person who submits a proposal for, or who enters into, a covered transaction, including an agent or representative of a participant. A “covered transaction” is a transaction described in 2 CFR part 180, subpart B, and the Department's regulations in 2 CFR 3485.220. This system of records covers contractors who are undergoing debarment or suspension proceedings or who have been debarred or suspended. Contractors covered by this system of records are individuals who meet the definition of “contractor” under 48 CFR 9.403, including individuals who directly or indirectly submit offers for or are awarded, or may reasonably be expected to submit offers for or be awarded, a government contract, or who conduct business, or may reasonably be expected to conduct business with the Department as an agent or representative of another contractor. Finally, this system covers individuals receiving grants or contracts subject to requirements under the Drug-Free Workplace Act who are undergoing debarment or suspension proceedings or who have been debarred or suspended.
This system of records contains documents relating to debarment and suspension proceedings, including: Written referrals, notices of suspensions and proposed debarments, respondents' responses to notices and other communications between the Department and respondents, court documents, including indictments, information, judgments of conviction, plea agreements, prosecutorial offers of evidence to be produced at trial, pre-sentencing reports and civil judgments, intra-agency and inter-agency communications regarding proposed or completed debarments or suspensions, and records of any interim or final decisions, requests, or orders made by a deciding debarring or suspending official (DSO) or fact-finding DSO
EO 12549, Debarment and Suspension (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189); EO 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235); the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-355, title II, section 2455, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); 2 CFR part 180—the Office of Management and Budget Guidelines and 2 CFR part 3485; Departmental Directive for Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension, Administrative Communications System Directive ODS: 1-101 (Directive); 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3, and 3474; the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, as amended (41 U.S.C. 8101-8106); 34 CFR part 84—Department's Regulations on the Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance); and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR subpart 9.4, Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.
Information contained in this system of records is used to: (1) Protect the Federal Government from the actions of individuals that constitute grounds for debarment or suspension or both under the Department's debarment and suspension regulations, the Department's Drug-Free Workplace regulations, or the FAR; (2) make decisions regarding debarments and suspensions; and (3) ensure that participants and Federal agencies give effect to debarment or suspension decisions rendered by the Department.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made case by case or, if the Department has complied with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(a) In the event that one of the parties listed below is involved in litigation or ADR, or has an interest in litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose certain records to the parties described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this routine use under the conditions specified in those paragraphs:
(i) The Department or any component of the Department;
(ii) Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice (DOJ) has agreed or has been requested to provide or arrange for representation for the employee;
(iv) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Paper records are kept in file folders in locked file cabinets. Electronic records are kept in a computer database and on a Web-based portal maintained by the Department.
Records are indexed by the names of the individuals and by docket numbers.
All physical access to the sites where this system of records are maintained is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the building for his or her employee badge. Paper files are kept in locked file cabinets. Immediate access to these records is restricted to authorized staff. The computer database maintained by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Management, is accessible only to authorized persons and is password-protected and utilizes security hardware and software. The Web-based portal that is operated by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Management, however, is accessible to anyone with access to the Internet.
Access to records in this system is only available to authorized users. Management approves all access, roles and responsibilities. Users outside of the internal functional team have no access to personally identifiable information. Strict access to production and reporting databases is enforced. Intrusion detection, user recertification, and vulnerability scans are performed on access and databases.
Records relating to debarment and suspension actions under EO 12549 are retained in accordance with Department of Education Records Disposition Schedule (ED/RDS) Part 16, Item 4(c). These records are retained for eight years from the end of the fiscal year in which the case is closed and then destroyed. Records relating to all other debarment and suspension actions are currently unscheduled, pending approval of applicable records retention schedules by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). These records will not be destroyed until applicable NARA-approved records retention schedules are in effect.
Senior Procurement Executive, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20202-1100.
Director, Risk Management Service, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20202-1100.
Non-Federal Audit Director, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3323.
Director, Administrative Actions and Appeals Division, Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20202-5353.
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 490 E. L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 2100A, Washington, DC 20202-4616.
If an individual wishes to determine whether a record exists regarding him or her in this system of records, the individual must contact the system manager. Requests for notification about an individual record must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5.
If an individual wishes to gain access to a record in this system, he or she must contact the system manager and provide information as described in the notification procedure. Requests for access to an individual's record must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5. Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5), the Department retains the discretion not to disclose records to an individual during the course of a debarment or suspension proceeding against the individual.
If an individual wishes to change the content of a record in the system of records, he or she must contact the system manager with the information described in the notification procedure, identify the specific item(s) to be changed, and provide a written justification for the change, including any supporting documentation. Requests to amend a record must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
Sources for records in this system include: Department employees involved in the management of grants, contracts, and agreements; the investigative inspection and audit files maintained by the Department's Office of Inspector General; other organizations or persons that may have relevant information regarding participants and their principals; and participants, principals, contractors, or other individuals undergoing or who have undergone debarment and suspension proceedings.
None.
18-04-04
Education's Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS).
None.
Electronic Data Records: Dell System's Plano Technology Center, 2300 West Plano Parkway, Plano, TX 75075-8427 and Dell System's Florence Technology Center, 7190 Industrial Road, Florence, KY 41022-2908 (contractor).
See the Appendix at the end of this notice for additional system locations.
Categories of individuals covered by the system include employees of the Department of Education (Department),
Other categories of individuals covered by the system include:
• Persons billed by the Department for materials and services such as Freedom of Information Act requests and computer tapes of statistical data.
• Persons ordered by a court of law to pay restitution to the Department.
• Individuals who have received funds through the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Scholarship program and who have not provided evidence of fulfilling their obligations under that program.
• Current and former Department employees who received overpayments and the overpayments have not been waived by the Department.
• Individuals who were overpaid or inappropriately paid under grant programs administered by the Department other than Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
• Claims against individuals, including orders by a court or other authority to make restitution, for the misuse of Federal funds in connection with any program administered by the Department.
Student loan repayment records and records maintained by the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals in either its debt management tracking system or on its Web-based system displaying final agency decisions are not covered under this notice.
Although EDCAPS contains information about institutions associated with individuals, the purposes for which the Department collects and maintains information under this system of records, and its usage of this information, pertains only to individuals protected under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a).
Records in this system contain the individual's name and address, telephone number, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number provided by Dun & Bradstreet, Social Security number (SSN), date of birth, email address, banking information, eligibility codes, detailed and summary obligation data, reports of expenditures, and grant management data, including application and close-out information. Documents maintained in the system include, but are not limited to, activity logs, copies of checks, contracts, court orders, letters of notice, promissory notes, telephone logs, peer reviewer resumes, and related correspondence.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes section 415 of the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88, 20 U.S.C. 3475); 31 U.S.C. 3321 (note); 31 U.S.C. 3512 (including the note) and 3515; 31 U.S.C. 7504; 31 U.S.C. 902(a); Executive Order (EO) 9397 (8 FR 16095), as amended by EO 13478 (73 FR 70239), and 31 U.S.C. 7701 (TIN); Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards issued by the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; 31 U.S.C. 3711-3720E.
The purpose of EDCAPS is to maintain financial and management records associated with the fiscal operations of the Department and other entities with contracting authority that use EDCAPS.
Records are used for, but not limited to, the following:
• Managing grant and contract awards.
• Making payments.
• Accounting for goods and services provided and received.
• Enforcing eligibility requirements and conditions in awards and U.S. law relating to transactions covered by this system.
• Defending the Department in actions relating to transactions covered by this system.
• Investigating complaints.
• Updating information.
• Correcting errors, investigating fraud, and preventing improper payments.
• Performing the receivables management function and safeguarding public funds.
• Preparing financial statements and other financial documents.
• Determining qualifications of individuals for selection as grant application peer reviewers.
The EDCAPS financial management system consists of a suite of applications including:
The FMSS module of EDCAPS is the Department's official general ledger. It is the central piece of the Department's integrated financial management system. FMSS includes functionality for budget planning and execution, funds control, receipt management, administrative payment management, loan servicing, and internal and external reporting. FMSS interfaces with a variety of other EDCAPS systems such as the Grants Management System (G5), Contracts and Purchasing Support System (CPSS), and eTRAVEL. The Travel Management System (TMS) is covered under an existing General Services Administration (GSA) Governmentwide system of records notice entitled “Contracted Travel Services Program” (GSA/GOVT-4).
The purpose of G5 is to administer grants and cooperative agreements and record decisions related to grants, from planning through closeout, including disbursing funds to grant recipients for most Department programs and recording non-financial administrative actions involving grants under those programs. G5 records individual payments in real time, and summary payment data is posted to FMSS in a nightly batching process. Payment information is retrievable in G5 by DUNS number as required under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to agencies. The name, mailing address, and other characteristic data related to Federal grants or institutional loans are also maintained.
CPSS supports the contract pre- and post-award process and purchasing. It interfaces with FMSS at the detail level for fund control, general ledger, accounts payable, and accounts receivable. A commercial software package is used to provide CPSS functionality.
The Department of Education may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the requirements of the Privacy Act, under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(a) In the event that one of the parties listed below is involved in litigation or ADR proceedings, or has an interest in litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose certain records to the parties described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this routine use under the conditions specified in those paragraphs:
(i) The Department or any component of the Department;
(ii) Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where
(iv) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): The Department may disclose to a consumer reporting agency information regarding a claim by the Department which is determined to be valid and overdue as follows: (1) The name, address, TIN, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual responsible for the claim; (2) the amount, status, and history of the claim; and (3) the program under which the claim arose. The Department may disclose the information specified in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and the procedures contained in 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). A consumer reporting agency to
Records are maintained on hard copy, magnetic tapes, and computer servers.
Records are indexed by name, or other individual identifier, and TIN. The records are retrieved by a manual or computer search by indices.
All physical access to the sites of the Department and the Department's contractor, where this system of records is maintained, are controlled and monitored by security personnel. Direct access to the computer system employed by the Department is restricted to authorized Department staff performing official duties. Authorized staff members are assigned passwords that must be used for access to computerized data. Also, an additional password is necessary to gain access to the system. The system-access password is changed frequently. The Department's information system's security posture has been certified and accredited in accordance with applicable Federal standards.
Records in EDCAPS are retained in accordance with Department of Education Records Disposition Schedule ED 254 (N1-441-11-001).
The EDCAPS manager is the Director, Financial Systems Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20202-1100.
If an individual wishes to determine whether a record pertaining to the individual is in the system of records, he or she should contact the appropriate system manager. Requests by an individual for notification must meet the requirements in the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5.
If an individual wishes to gain access to a record in this system, he or she should contact the appropriate system manager and provide information as described in the notification procedure. Requests by an individual for access to a record must meet the requirements in the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5.
If an individual wishes to change the content of a record pertaining to the individual that is contained in the system of records, he or she should contact the appropriate system manager with the information described in the notification procedure, identify the specific items requested to be changed, and provide a justification for such change. A request to amend a record must meet the requirements in the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
Information in this system is obtained from electronic or paper versions of applications seeking Department contracts, grants, or loans at the time of application. Information is also obtained from Department program offices, employees, consultants, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and other entities performing services for the Department.
None.
Appendix to 18-04-04
The Financial Management Software System, the Contracts and Purchasing Support System, and the Grants Management System (G5) are all maintained by the Financial Systems Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20202-1100.
All locations of the U.S. Department of Education. For information about these locations see
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Captioned and Described Educational Media Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Dates:
This priority is:
Section 674(c) of the IDEA requires, in part, that the Secretary of Education support video description, open captioning, and closed captioning that is appropriate for use in the classroom setting, of (a) television programs; (b) videos; and (c) other materials, including programs and materials associated with new and emerging technologies.
The need to support captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom setting continues to grow. The National Center for Educational Statistics reports that, in 2009, 69 percent of teachers and students used a computer in the classroom during instructional time (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Students who were once banned from bringing cell phones and other devices to school are now encouraged to “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) (Atkeson,
Multimedia and other new and emerging technologies are generally not accessible to students who have hearing or vision impairments because only a small percentage of educational multimedia used in the classroom is captioned or described. Federal requirements for captioning and video description do not apply to many forms of media used specifically in the classroom, even with the expansion of these requirements included in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. (See
The ongoing challenge of ensuring that educational materials in the classroom are accessible to students who have hearing or vision impairments extends to a variety of critical content areas, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and Spanish language materials. STEM materials are often not in accessible formats, which creates a significant barrier to participation for eligible students who want to study in these critical areas. Likewise, our experience shows that few Spanish language materials are captioned or described, which likewise places unnecessary barriers between eligible students who speak Spanish and a great many instructional materials for the classroom.
In the past, Federal funds were used to purchase the rights to educational films and videos in order to caption and describe media and make it available to eligible users with disabilities. However, recently, the national broadcast television network program providers and Television Access grantees have made some accessible educational television programs available at no cost and available on-demand to children with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, March 16, 2015). As a result, all media will be secured from program providers at no cost to the project. In exchange, the project will return captioned and described files to the program providers. This cost-saving partnership will ensure that additional Federal funds are available to caption and describe more media and that the media is made available to eligible users, on-demand, via computers and hand-held devices such as tablets and cell phones.
Captioning and description services funded under this priority are required to keep pace with advancements in new and emerging forms of media and technologies, address STEM content, and also address the needs of students who speak Spanish.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of an Accessible Learning Center (Center) that will oversee the selection, acquisition, captioning, video description, and distribution of educational media through a free loan service for eligible users. We define eligible users as students, including English learners, in early learning and kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) classroom settings who have hearing or vision impairments and individuals, such as teachers, parents, and paraprofessionals, who are directly involved in these students' early learning or K-12 classroom instruction.
The Center will develop procedures to identify educational media that meet the educational needs of eligible users, including English learners, in early learning and K-12 classroom settings; make arrangements for the media to be captioned and described; and establish strategies for the free distribution to eligible users. Some of the activities and procedures must focus on selecting titles geared toward improving early learning outcomes for preschool users and using technologies, such as video streaming and other forms of multimedia, to reach eligible users in rural and high-need schools.
Media must be made available at no cost in Spanish for eligible users who are learning English and live in households where Spanish is the dominant language. Access to high-quality instructional media in the STEM academic subjects must be provided. The project must collaborate with the Television Access grantees and the national broadcast television network program providers to make accessible educational television programs available at no cost to the project and available on-demand to eligible users. The process of distribution through the loan service must include making the educational media available through restricted online access for eligible users who are accessing the media via public computers and hand-held devices such as tablets and cell phones.
To be considered for funding under this priority, the applicant must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. The project funded under this priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
(a) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;
The following Web sites provide more information on logic models:
(b) A plan to implement the activities described in the
(c) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
(d) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
(2) A three-day project directors' meeting in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.
(3) A two-day trip annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(e) A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the annual grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP.
With approval from the OSEP project officer, the Center must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
(a) Develop and implement a plan for operating a free online media loan service distribution system to make it possible for eligible users to easily borrow media from the loan service or to secure restricted access, on-demand, to media via computers and hand-held devices such as tablets and cell phones;
(b) Establish and make available computerized registration and application procedures, accessible via the Internet, that will be used to register eligible users for media access, deliver the captioned and described media material, and track and record consumer feedback and usage information;
(c) Implement strategies and procedures for identifying and prioritizing educational media that are not currently readily accessible to students, but are appropriate for eligible users attending early learning programs and elementary and secondary schools, including English learners, that meet the educational needs of those students;
(d) Select media to closely match the educational needs of eligible users, taking into account the media most commonly used in school districts and early learning programs across the Nation;
(e) Implement a plan to recommend media to the OSEP Project Officer for review;
(f) Make arrangements with program producers and distributors for the Center to acquire (at no cost) the rights to caption, describe, and distribute selected media, including distribution in alternate formats, such as video streaming;
(g) Develop strategies and procedures for identifying, prioritizing, and securing the rights (at no cost) to previously captioned and described children's television programs that are appropriate for eligible users, including English learners, that meet the educational needs of those students and continue to make those programs available through this free loan service on-demand;
(h) For media that has been secured but not previously captioned or described, prepare quality captions and descriptions, taking into account the grade or developmental level of the material, as well as the age and vocabulary level of the likely target audience;
(i) Ensure that 25 percent of the materials to be captioned or described are materials in STEM fields;
(j) Ensure that 25 percent of the media acquired annually is captioned and described in Spanish at no cost for eligible users who are learning English and live in households where Spanish is the dominant language;
(k) Develop and implement quality control standards and procedures for media after it has been captioned and described;
(l) Provide captioned and described files to producers and distributors so that they are able to continue to make the media directly accessible to interested parties beyond the eligible users who will be served under this program;
(m) Provide free-of-charge disk copies of media, if requested by eligible users, in order to reach children with hearing or vision impairments in rural settings or in schools with limited broadband support;
(n) Identify and, as appropriate, utilize alternate delivery methods and vehicles for media access, as new and emerging technologies become available for classroom use;
(o) Prepare, update, and utilize an online catalog listing all captioned and described media available under this project as they become available;
(p) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
(q) Establish and maintain a stakeholder panel of at least seven members, which shall meet annually, and include video producers and distributors, captioning and description service providers, parents and families of students with hearing or vision loss, public and private school administrators, and other educational personnel. This panel must provide feedback to the project regarding the usefulness of program activities and services, taking into consideration the input from consumers, and review the Center's media acquisition, captioning, description, and distribution process in order to ensure maximum effectiveness of the project;
(r) Develop and maintain a comprehensive online searchable database containing information related to the availability of captioned and described educational media, information regarding the captioned and described media loan service, requirements governing the use of captioned and described media available from the loan service, and a list of captioning and description service providers. In addition, the project shall maintain a clearinghouse of information on the subject of captioning and description for use by consumers, agencies, corporations, businesses, schools, and other interested stakeholders;
(s) Develop strategies and use technologies for improving the Center's effectiveness by replacing out-of-date media with media containing more current information (where appropriate);
(t) Use and upgrade technologies to caption and describe selected media as newer technologies emerge;
(u) Select media that are intended to improve early learning outcomes for preschool children who are eligible users; and
(v) Develop and implement strategies to reach eligible users attending rural and high-need schools.
In deciding whether to continue funding this project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as—
(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This intensive review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC, that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities and products have contributed to an increased number of available accessible educational media for students with hearing or vision impairments.
20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
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 (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants only to entities it has identified in an approved application.
4.
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327N.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 70 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
3.
Applications Available: December 24, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 22, 2016.
Applications for grants under this competition 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
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 22, 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), 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 at the following Web site:
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 Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
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 you enter into the SAM database. 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, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and 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 Captioned and Described Educational Media competition, CFDA number 84.327N, 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 Captioned and Described Educational Media competition at
• 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
• 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 read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• 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. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• 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 hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
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: Jo Ann McCann, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600. FAX: (202) 245-7590.
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
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.
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.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
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 84.327N), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
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 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, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the
4.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For Further Information Contact: Jo Ann McCann, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-7434.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 22, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Nofertary Fofana, 202-502-7533.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 25, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of Partially-Closed Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a partially-closed meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
January 15, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC in the Lecture Room.
Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at:
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at
The public comment period for this meeting will take place on January 15, 2016 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at
Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.
National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of Preferred Alternative.
The U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) is announcing its Preferred Alternative for the disposition of certain quantities of surplus plutonium evaluated in the
A copy of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS may be obtained by contacting: Ms. Sachiko McAlhany, NEPA Document Manager, SPD Supplemental EIS at
For further information on the Final SPD Supplemental EIS, contact Ms. Sachiko McAlhany as listed in
In the
The scope of this notice pertains only to the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium for which a disposition path is not assigned. DOE/NNSA has no Preferred Alternative, at this time, for other potential actions considered in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. Specifically, DOE/NNSA has no Preferred Alternative for the disposition of the remaining 7.1 MT of surplus plutonium from pits, nor does it have a Preferred Alternative among the pathways analyzed for providing the capability to disassemble surplus pits and convert the plutonium from pits to a form suitable for disposition.
DOE/NNSA's Preferred Alternative with regard to the disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium is to prepare this plutonium for eventual disposal at WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, a geologic repository for disposal of TRU waste generated by atomic energy defense activities. This would allow the DOE/NNSA to continue progress on the disposition of surplus weapon usable plutonium in furtherance of the policies of the United States to ensure that surplus plutonium is never used in a nuclear weapon, and to remove surplus plutonium from the State of South Carolina. Surplus non-pit plutonium would be prepared and packaged at the Savannah River Site (SRS) using H-Canyon/HB-line and/or K-Area facilities to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria and all other applicable regulatory requirements and would be temporarily stored in E-Area at SRS until shipped. Shipments of this surplus plutonium to WIPP would not commence until WIPP is fully operational, and would be placed in the appropriate place in any queue of material to be shipped to WIPP.
DOE/NNSA may issue a ROD containing its plan for disposition of the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium analyzed in Final SPD Supplemental EIS no sooner than 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b. Project No.: 13318-003.
c. Date filed: October 28, 2015.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: February 16, 2016.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file filing motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The proposed project would be a closed-loop system using groundwater for initial fill and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 7,972-foot-long earthen embankment forming a geomembrane-lined upper reservoir with a surface area of 64.21 acres and a storage capacity of 2,568 acre-feet at a maximum surface elevation of 6,135 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a 8,003-foot-long earthen embankment forming a geomembrane-lined lower reservoir with a surface area of 60.14 acres and a storage capacity of 3,206 acre-feet at a maximum surface elevation of 4,457 feet msl; (3) a 500-foot-long, rip-rap lined trapezoidal spillway built into the crest of each embankment; (4) a 0.5-percent slope perforated polyvinyl chloride tube of varying diameter and accompanying optical fiber drainage system designed to detect, collect, and monitor water leakage from the reservoirs; (5) a 25-inch-diameter bottom outlet with manual valve for gravitational dewatering of the lower reservoir; (6) an upper intake consisting of a bell mouth, 38.6-foot-wide by 29.8-foot-long inclined screen, head gate, and 13.8-foot-diameter foundational steel pipe; (7) a 36.5-foot-diameter, 9,655-foot-long steel high-pressure penstock from the upper reservoir to the powerhouse that is predominantly above ground with a 14-foot-long buried segment; (8) three 9.8-foot-diameter, 1,430-foot-long steel low-pressure penstocks from the lower reservoir to the powerhouse that are predominantly above ground with a 78-foot-long buried segment ; (9) a partially-buried powerhouse with three 131.1-megawatt (MW) reversible pump-turbine units with a total installed capacity of 393.3 MW; (10) a 32.8 mile, 230-kilovolt above-ground transmission line interconnecting to an existing non-project substation; (11) approximately 10.7 miles of improved project access road; (12) approximately 3.4 miles of new permanent project access road; (13) approximately 8.3 miles of temporary project access road; and (14) appurtenant facilities. The project would generate about 1,187 gigawatt-hours annually.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
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:
Pursuant to Executive Order of President Barack Obama, all executive departments and other agencies of the Federal government shall be closed for the last half of the scheduled workday on Thursday, December 24, 2015, the day before Christmas Day.
In accordance with section 385.2007 of the Commission's Rules, 18 CFR 385.2007, filings and documents due to be filed on Thursday, December 24, 2015, will be accepted as timely on the next official business day.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company 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:
The staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) has revised its
The OEP staff anticipates issuing our final updated version of the
The revised
Applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 18 are referenced or summarized throughout the
The
Interested parties can help us determine the appropriate updates and improvements by providing comments or suggestions that focus on the specific sections of the
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the docket number (AD16-3-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
All of the information related to the proposed updates to the
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of
On January 30, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-77-000 pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities, and authorization to abandon certain facilities, collectively known as the Broad Run Expansion Project (Project). The Project purpose is to provide an additional 200,000 dekatherms per day of firm incremental transportation service through construction of new compressor stations and replacement of compression facilities in West Virginia, Kentucky; and Tennessee.
On February 12, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Tennessee proposes to build four new compressor stations and add compression at two existing compressor stations. Tennessee also proposes to improve efficiency and reduce certain emissions by replacing older existing compression facilities on its system with newer compressor units.
The Project would include construction and operation of the following facilities:
• Two new compressor stations in Kanawha County, West Virginia, to be known as the Tyler Mountain Compressor Station (CS 118A) and the Rocky Fork Compressor Station (CS 119A);
• a new compressor station in Madison County, Kentucky, to be known as the Richmond Compressor Station (CS 875);
• a new compressor station in Davidson County, Tennessee, to be known as the Pinnacle Compressor Station (CS 563); and
• modifications (including abandonment and replacement of certain compression units, system components, and associated facilities) at the existing Clay City Compressor Station in Powell County, Kentucky (CS 106), and the existing Catlettsburg Compressor Station in Boyd County, Kentucky (CS 114).
On May 1, 2015, the Commission issued a
The primary issues raised by the commentors included concerns about potential impacts on organic farms and wildlife, including Walden's Puddle Wildlife Rehabilitation Center; air quality and noise impacts; public safety; and aspects of the FERC process.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time spent researching proceedings by automatically providing notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The FERC's eLibrary system can also be used to search formal issuances and submittals from the public docket. To use, select the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu located at
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the SMP Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the SMP Project would have some adverse environmental impacts; however, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of the applicants' proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended in the final EIS.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the final EIS. The USACE has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposals and participate in the NEPA analysis. The USACE may adopt and use the EIS as it has jurisdictional authority pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States; section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which regulates any work or structures that potentially affect the navigable capacity of navigable waters of the United States; and section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act which regulates the temporary occupation of water-related structures constructed by the United States. Although the cooperating agency provides input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agency will present its own conclusions and recommendations in its Record of Decision for the project.
The final EIS of the SMP Project addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities:
The Hillabee Expansion Project would include:
• Approximately 43.5 miles of new 42- and 48-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop
• one new compressor station in Choctaw County, Alabama and modifications to three existing compressor stations in Dallas, Chilton, and Coosa Counties, Alabama; and
• installation of pig
The Sabal Trail Project would include:
• approximately 516.2 miles of new natural gas pipeline in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, including:
○ 481.6 miles of 36-inch-diameter mainline pipeline in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida;
○ the 21.5-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter Citrus County Line in Florida; and
○ the 13.1-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Hunters Creek Line in Florida;
• five new compressor stations in Tallapoosa County, Alabama; Dougherty County, Georgia; and Suwannee, Marion, and Osceola Counties, Florida;
• subsequent modifications to two of the new compressor stations in Dougherty County, Georgia and Suwannee County, Florida; and
• installation of pig launchers/receivers, MLVs, and meter and regulating stations.
The FSC Project would include:
• approximately 126.3 miles of new 30- and 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Florida; and
• installation of pig launchers/receivers, MLVs, and meter and regulating stations.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the final EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of the final EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the final EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Additional information about the SMP Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collections and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
Comments on the collections of information are due February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-5-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in your comments.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission uses the collected data from planning areas to monitor forecasted demands by electric utilities with fundamental demand responsibilities and to develop hourly demand characteristics.
• Actual transmission investment for the most recent calendar year, and projected, incremental investments for the next five calendar years (in dollar terms); and
• a project by project listing that specifies for each project the most up to date, expected completion date, percentage completion as of the date of filing, and reasons for delays for all current and projected investments over the next five calendar years. Projects with projected costs less than $20 million are excluded from this listing.
To ensure that Commission rules are successfully meeting the objectives of Section 219, the Commission collects industry data, projections and related information that detail the level of investment. FERC-730 information regarding projected investments as well as information about completed projects allows the Commission to monitor the success of the transmission pricing reforms and to determine the status of critical projects and reasons for delay.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/Feed Crops and New Food Use Inert Ingredients” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0597.12 and OMB Control No. 2070-0024, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on August, 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0715, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Amaris Johnson, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-9542; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Under the law, EPA is responsible for ensuring that the maximum residue levels likely to be found in or on food/feed are safe for human consumption through a careful review and evaluation of residue chemistry and toxicology data. In addition, EPA must ensure that adequate enforcement of the tolerance can be achieved through the testing of submitted analytical methods. If the data are adequate for EPA to determine that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure, the Agency will establish the tolerance or grant an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
This ICR only applies to the information collection activities associated with the submission of a petition for a tolerance action. While EPA is authorized to set pesticide tolerances, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for their enforcement. Food or feed commodities found to contain pesticide residues in excess of established tolerances are considered adulterated, and are subject to seizure by FDA, and may result in civil penalties.
Trade secret or CBI is frequently submitted to the EPA in support of a tolerance petition because submissions usually include the manufacturing process, product formulation, and supporting data. When such information is provided to the Agency, the information is protected from disclosure under FIFRA Section 10. CBI data submitted to the EPA is handled strictly in accordance with the provisions of the “FIFRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.”
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 48,328 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is a result of an increase from 137 to 165 in the estimated average number of tolerance petitions submitted annually, which resulted in a change to the annual burden hours for respondents from 236,800 in the previous renewal to 285,128 in the current renewal. There is no change in burden per tolerance petition; burden for respondents increased as a result of the estimated increase in the average number of petitions submitted annually. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; extension of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the draft document titled, “External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides—Health Criteria” (EPA/600/R-15/066). The original
The public comment period began on November 24, 2015, and ends on February 24, 2016. Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2016.
The “External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides—Health Criteria” will be available primarily via the Internet on the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Dioxide (Health Criteria) home page at
For technical information, contact Dr. Tom Long, NCEA; telephone: 919-541-1880; facsimile: 919-541-1818; or email:
Comments may be submitted electronically via
For information on submitting comments to the docket, please contact the ORD Docket at the EPA's Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202-566-1752; fax: 202-566-9744; or email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that electronic emissions reporting is now available for sources covered by the Federal Air Rules for Reservations (FARR). The FARR requires certain sources of air pollution on Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington to register and report emissions to the EPA. Any person who owns or operates a source of air pollution with the potential to emit two or more tons per year of an air pollutant, with certain exceptions, must register annually and report those emissions. Registration and emissions reports are due within 90 days of commencing operations, and annually thereafter. The EPA created the FARR Online Reporting System (FORS) to help make registration and emissions reporting easier. The FORS, operated through the agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), is CROMERR compliant, which means the electronic signature meets the EPA's regulatory electronic signature requirements.
Nancy Helm: Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 206-553-6908; or
Nancy Helm: Office of Air, Waste and Toxics; 206-553-6908; or
As of January 15, 2016, air pollution sources covered by the FARR as provided in 40 CFR 49.138 may register and report emissions electronically.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental Research Involving Human Subjects”; identified by EPA ICR No. 2195.05 and OMB Control No. 2070-0169, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0713, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ramé Cromwell, Field and External Affairs Division (7605P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9068; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 4,238 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to a decrease in anticipated number of responses per year. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
The following items have been deleted from the list of Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, December 17, 2015, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of December 10, 2015. These items have been adopted by the Commission.
The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Architecture (Task Force) will hold its sixth meeting.
January 29, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Timothy May, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-1463, email:
The meeting will be held on January 29, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the FCC, Room TW-305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Task Force is a Federal Advisory Committee that studies and reports findings and recommendations on PSAP structure, architecture, operations, and funding to promote greater efficiency of PSAP operations, security, and cost containment during the deployment of Next Generation 911 systems. On December 2, 2014, pursuant to the FACA, the Commission established the Task Force charter for a period of two years, through December 2, 2016. At this meeting, the Task Force will hear a presentation and consider a vote on a consolidated report and final set of recommendations, as incorporated from the reports and recommendations of the Task Force's three working groups; specifically, the reports and recommendations of Working Group 1—Cybersecurity: Optimal Approach for PSAPs and Working Group 2—Optimal 911 Service Architecture, which the Task Force approved for consideration on a procedural vote at the December 10, 2015 public meeting, and the report and recommendations of Working 3—Optimal Resource Allocation, which the Task Force approved for consideration on a procedural vote at the September 29, 2015 public meeting.
Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 7, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 11, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 21, 2015.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 21, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments 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) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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 within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products Regulated Solely Under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR part 1271; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides certain establishments that manufacture non-reproductive human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), regulated solely under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and under FDA regulations, with recommendations and relevant examples for complying with the requirements to report HCT/P deviations.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 23, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue Based Products Regulated Solely Under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR part 1271; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The document provides certain establishments that manufacture HCT/Ps, regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and the regulations under 21 CFR part 1271, with recommendations and relevant examples for complying with the requirements under 21 CFR 1271.350(b) to report HCT/P deviations. The examples provided in the draft guidance are intended to illustrate those HCT/P deviations that have been most frequently reported to FDA, CBER.
The draft guidance does not apply to reproductive HCT/Ps or to HCT/Ps regulated under 21 CFR part 1270 and recovered before May 25, 2005. The draft guidance does not apply to health professionals who implant, transplant, infuse, or transfer HCT/Ps into recipients. The draft guidance also does not apply to HCT/Ps that are regulated as drugs, devices, and/or biological products under section 351 of the PHS Act and/or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, nor does it apply to investigational HCT/Ps subject to an investigational new drug application or an investigational device exemption.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on Deviation Reporting for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue Based Products Regulated Solely Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR part 1271. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1271 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0543.
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of Class Deviation from Competition Requirements for the Health Center Program; Notice of Class Deviations from the Requirements for Extensions, Administrative Supplements, and for Announcing these Deviations in the
In accordance with the Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM) Chapter 1.03.103, the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) has been granted class deviations from the requirements for extensions contained in the AAGAM Chapter 2.04.104B-4A.I.a(5)(b) and the requirements for administrative supplements contained in AAGAM Chapter 2.04.104B-4A.4.b to provide additional grant funds during extended budget periods in excess of the allowed maximum. The deviations prevent interruptions in the provision of critical health care services for a funded service area until a new award can be made to an eligible Service Area Competition (SAC) applicant and to conduct an orderly phase-out of Health Center Program activities by the current award recipient. BPHC has also been granted a deviation that allows it to annually announce via the
Intended Recipient of the Award: Health Center Program award recipients for service areas that are threatened with a lapse in services due to transitioning award recipients.
Amount of Non-Competitive Awards: Varies annually.
Period of Supplemental Funding: Awards made beginning in fiscal year 2016 and ongoing.
CFDA Number: 93.224
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b, as amended).
Justification: Targeting the nation's neediest populations and geographic areas, the Health Center Program currently funds more than 1,300 health centers that operate approximately 9,000 service delivery sites in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Basin. More than 23 million patients, including medically underserved and uninsured patients, received comprehensive, culturally competent, quality primary health care services through the Health Center Program award recipients.
Approximately one-third of current award recipients' service areas are scheduled to be competed each year via SACs. SACs are also held prior to a current grant's project period end date when (1) a grant is voluntarily relinquished or (2) a program noncompliance enforcement action taken by HRSA terminates the grant. If a SAC draws no fundable applications, BPHC may extend the current award recipient's budget period to conduct an orderly phase-out of Health Center Program activities and prepare for a new competition for the service area.
The amount of additional grant funds is calculated by pro-rating HRSA's existing annual funding commitment to the service area. The average Health Center Program grant amount is over $2 million. Approximately 6 months is required to announce and conduct a SAC. BPHC's extensions and administrative supplements are generally for a minimum of 90 days, which is at least 25 percent of the annual grant amount, thereby typically exceeding the allowed maximum. Through the deviations, award recipients receive consistent levels of funding to support uninterrupted primary health care services to the nation's most vulnerable populations and communities during service area award recipient transition.
Olivia Shockey, Expansion Division Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration at 301-443-9282 or
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at:
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed
The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimated budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 includes $28,940,752 for the IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP) for health professional educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) in return for full-time clinical service as defined in the IHS LRP policy clarifications at
This program announcement is subject to the appropriation of funds. This notice is being published early to coincide with the recruitment activity of the IHS which competes with other Government and private health management organizations to employ qualified health professionals.
This program is authorized by the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) Section 108, codified at 25 U.S.C. 1616a.
The estimated amount available is approximately $19,755,896 to support approximately 437 competing awards averaging $45,208 per award for a two year contract. The estimated amount available is approximately $9,184,856 to support approximately 395 competing awards averaging $23,253 per award for a one year extension. One year contract extensions will receive priority consideration in any award cycle. Applicants selected for participation in the FY 2016 program cycle will be expected to begin their service period no later than September 30, 2016.
Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1616a(b), to be eligible to participate in the LRP, an individual must:
(1)(A) Be enrolled—
(i) In a course of study or program in an accredited institution, as determined by the Secretary, within any State and be scheduled to complete such course of study in the same year such individual applies to participate in such program; or
(ii) In an approved graduate training program in a health profession; or
(B) Have a degree in a health profession and a license to practice in a State; and
(2)(A) Be eligible for, or hold an appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS); or
(B) Be eligible for selection for service in the Regular Corps of the PHS; or
(C) Meet the professional standards for civil service employment in the IHS; or
(D) Be employed in an Indian health program without service obligation; and
(3) Submit to the Secretary an application for a contract to the LRP. The Secretary must approve the contract before the disbursement of loan repayments can be made to the participant. Participants will be required to fulfill their contract service agreements through full-time clinical practice at an Indian health program site determined by the Secretary. Loan repayment sites are characterized by physical, cultural, and professional isolation, and have histories of frequent staff turnover. Indian health program sites are annually prioritized within the Agency by discipline, based on need or vacancy. The IHS LRP's ranking system gives high site scores to those sites that are most in need of specific health professions. Awards are given to the applications that match the highest priorities until funds are no longer available.
Any individual who owes an obligation for health professional service to the Federal Government, a State, or other entity is not eligible for the LRP unless the obligation will be completely satisfied before they begin service under this program.
25 U.S.C. 1616a authorizes the IHS LRP and provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall establish a program to be known as the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program (hereinafter referred to as the Loan Repayment Program) in order to assure an adequate supply of trained health professionals necessary to maintain accreditation of, and provide health care services to Indians through, Indian health programs.
25 U.S.C. 1603(10) provides that:
“Health Profession” means allopathic medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, geriatric medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, podiatric medicine, nursing, public health nursing, dentistry, psychiatry, osteopathy, optometry, pharmacy, psychology, public health, social work, marriage and family therapy, chiropractic medicine, environmental health and engineering, an allied health profession, or any other health profession.
For the purposes of this program, the term “Indian health program” is defined in 25 U.S.C. 1616a(a)(2)(A), as follows:
(A) The term Indian health program means any health program or facility funded, in whole or in part, by the Service for the benefit of Indians and administered —
(i) Directly by the Service;
(ii) By any Indian Tribe or Tribal or Indian organization pursuant to a contract under —
(I) The Indian Self-Determination Act, or
(II) Section 23 of the Act of April 30, 1908, (25 U.S.C. 47), popularly known as the Buy Indian Act; or
(iii) By an urban Indian organization pursuant to Title V of this Act.
25 U.S.C. 1616a, authorizes the IHS to determine specific health professions for which IHS LRP contracts will be awarded. Annually, the Director, Division of Health Professions Support, sends a letter to the Director, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, IHS Area Directors, Tribal health officials, and urban Indian health programs directors to request a list of positions for which there is a need or vacancy. The list of priority health professions that follows is based upon the needs of the IHS as well as upon the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(a) Medicine: Allopathic and Osteopathic.
(b) Nurse: Associate, B.S. and M.S. Degree.
(c) Clinical Psychology: Ph.D. and Psy.D.
(d) Counseling Psychology: Ph.D.
(e) Social Work: Licensed Clinical Social Worker or Licensed Master Social Worker; Masters and Doctorate level.
(f) Chemical Dependency/Addiction Counseling: Baccalaureate and Masters level.
(g) Counseling: Family Marriage Therapy Counselor LMFT, Licensed Professional Counselors: Masters level only.
(h) Dentistry: DDS and DMD.
(i) Dental Hygiene: Associate and B.S.
(j) Dental Assistant: Certified.
(k) Pharmacy: B.S., Pharm.D.
(l) Optometry: O.D.
(m) Physician Assistant: Certified.
(n) Advanced Practice Nurses: Nurse Practitioner, Certified Nurse Midwife, Doctor of Nursing, Registered Nurse Anesthetist (Priority consideration will be given to Registered Nurse Anesthetists.).
(o) Podiatry: D.P.M.
(p) Physical Rehabilitation Services: Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, and Audiology: M.S. and D.P.T.
(q) Diagnostic Radiology Technology: Associate and B.S.
(r) Medical Laboratory Scientist, Medical Technology, Medical Laboratory Technician: Associate and B.S.
(s) Public Health Nutritionist/Registered Dietitian.
(t) Engineering (Environmental): B.S. and M.S. (Engineers must provide environmental engineering services to be eligible.).
(u) Environmental Health (Sanitarian): B.S. and Masters level.
(v) Health Records: R.H.I.T. and R.H.I.A.
(w) Certified Professional Coder: AAPC or AHIMA.
(x) Respiratory Therapy.
(y) Ultrasonography.
(z) Chiropractors: Licensed.
(aa) Naturopathic Medicine: Licensed.
(bb) Acupuncturists: Licensed.
Not applicable.
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible health and allied health professions is effective for applicants for FY 2016. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded.
Each applicant will be responsible for submitting a complete application. Go to
• Employment Verification—Documentation of your employment with an Indian health program as applicable:
○ Commissioned Corps orders, Tribal employment documentation or offer letter, or Notification of Personnel Action (SF-50)—For current Federal employees.
• License to Practice—A photocopy of your current, non-temporary, full and unrestricted license to practice (issued by any state, Washington, DC or Puerto Rico).
• Loan Documentation—A copy of all current statements related to the loans submitted as part of the LRP application.
• If applicable, if you are a member of a Federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide a certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Certification: Form BIA—4432 Category A—Members of Federally-Recognized Indian Tribes, Bands or Communities or Category D—Alaska Native).
Applications for the FY 2016 LRP will be accepted and evaluated monthly beginning January 15, 2016 and will continue to be accepted each month thereafter until all funds are exhausted for FY 2016. Subsequent monthly deadline dates are scheduled for Friday of the second full week of each month until August 19, 2016.
Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(1) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(2) Received after the deadline date, but has a legible postmark dated on or before the deadline date. (Applicants should request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing).
Applications submitted after the monthly closing date will be held for consideration in the next monthly funding cycle. Applicants who do not receive funding by September 30, 2016, will be notified in writing.
Application documents should be sent to: IHS Loan Repayment Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857.
This program is not subject to review under Executive Order 12372.
Not applicable.
New applicants are responsible for using the online application. Applicants requesting a contract extension must do so in writing by January 1, 2016 to ensure the highest possibility of being funded a contract extension.
The IHS has identified the positions in each Indian health program for which there is a need or vacancy and ranked those positions in order of priority by developing discipline-specific prioritized lists of sites. Ranking criteria for these sites may include the following:
(1) Historically critical shortages caused by frequent staff turnover;
(2) Current unmatched vacancies in a health profession discipline;
(3) Projected vacancies in a health profession discipline;
(4) Ensuring that the staffing needs of Indian health programs administered by an Indian Tribe or Tribal health organization or urban Indian organization receive consideration on an equal basis with programs that are administered directly by the Service; and
(5) Giving priority to vacancies in Indian health programs that have a need for health professionals to provide health care services as a result of individuals having breached LRP contracts entered into under this section.
Consistent with this priority ranking, in determining applications to be approved and contracts to accept, the IHS will give priority to applications made by American Indians and Alaska Natives and to individuals recruited through the efforts of Indian Tribes or Tribal or Indian organizations.
Loan repayment awards will be made only to those individuals serving at facilities which have a site score of 70 or above through March 1, 2016, if funding is available.
One or all of the following factors may be applicable to an applicant, and the applicant who has the most of these factors, all other criteria being equal, will be selected.
(1) An applicant's length of current employment in the IHS, Tribal, or urban program.
(2) Availability for service earlier than other applicants (first come, first served).
(3) Date the individual's application was received.
Not applicable.
Notice of awards will be mailed on the last working day of each month. Once the applicant is approved for participation in the LRP, the applicant will receive confirmation of his/her loan repayment award and the duty site at which he/she will serve his/her loan repayment obligation.
Applicants may sign contractual agreements with the Secretary for two years. The IHS may repay all, or a portion, of the applicant's health profession educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) for tuition expenses and reasonable educational and living expenses in amounts up to $20,000 per year for each year of contracted service. Payments will be made annually to the participant for the purpose of repaying his/her outstanding health profession educational loans. Payment of health profession education loans will be made to the participant within 120 days, from the date the contract becomes effective. The effective date of the contract is calculated from the date it is signed by the Secretary or his/her delegate, or the IHS, Tribal, urban, or Buy Indian health center entry-on-duty date, whichever is more recent.
In addition to the loan payment, participants are provided tax assistance payments in an amount not less than 20 percent and not more than 39 percent of the participant's total amount of loan repayments made for the taxable year involved. The loan repayments and the tax assistance payments are taxable income and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The tax assistance payment will be paid to the IRS directly on the participant's behalf. LRP award recipients should be aware that the IRS may place them in a higher tax bracket than they would otherwise have been prior to their award.
Any individual who enters this program and satisfactorily completes his or her obligated period of service may apply to extend his/her contract on a year-by-year basis, as determined by the IHS. Participants extending their contracts may receive up to the maximum amount of $20,000 per year plus an additional 20 percent for Federal withholding.
Please address inquiries to Ms. Jacqueline K. Santiago, Chief, IHS Loan Repayment Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: 301/443-3396 [between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays].
IHS area offices and service units that are financially able are authorized to provide additional funding to make awards to applicants in the LRP, but not to exceed $35,000 a year plus tax assistance. All additional funding must be made in accordance with the priority system outlined below. Health professions given priority for selection above the $20,000 threshold are those identified as meeting the criteria in 25 U.S.C. 1616a(g)(2)(A) which provides that the Secretary shall consider the extent to which each such determination:
(i) Affects the ability of the Secretary to maximize the number of contracts that can be provided under the LRP from the amounts appropriated for such contracts;
(ii) Provides an incentive to serve in Indian health programs with the greatest shortages of health professionals; and
(iii) Provides an incentive with respect to the health professional involved remaining in an Indian health program with such a health professional shortage, and continuing to provide primary health services, after the completion of the period of obligated service under the LRP.
Contracts may be awarded to those who are available for service no later than September 30, 2016 and must be in compliance with any limits in the appropriation and 25 U.S.C. 1616a not to exceed the amount authorized in the IHS appropriation (up to $36,000,000 for FY 2016). In order to ensure compliance with the statutes, area offices or service units providing additional funding under this section are responsible for notifying the LRP of such payments before funding is offered to the LRP participant.
Should an IHS area office contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that area. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, the Albuquerque Area Office identifies supplemental monies for dentists. Only the dental positions within the Albuquerque Area will be funded with the supplemental monies consistent with the national ranking and site index within that area.
Should an IHS service unit contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that service unit. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, Whiteriver Service Unit identifies supplemental monies for nurses. The Whiteriver Service Unit consists of two facilities, namely the Whiteriver PHS Indian Hospital and the Cibecue Indian Health Center. The national ranking will be used for the Whiteriver PHS Indian Hospital (Score = 77) and the Cibecue Indian Health Center (Score = 89). With a score of 89, the Cibecue Indian Health Center would receive priority over the Whiteriver PHS Indian Hospital.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is committed to encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to enter the health professions and to assuring the availability of Indian health professionals to serve Indians. The IHS is committed to the recruitment of students for the following programs:
• The Indian Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship authorized by
• The Indian Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarship authorized by Section 103 of the IHCIA, codified at 25 U.S.C. 1613(b)(2).
• The Indian Health Professions Scholarship authorized by Section 104 of the IHCIA, codified at 25 U.S.C. 1613a.
Full-time and part-time scholarships will be funded for each of the three scholarship programs.
The scholarship award selections and funding are subject to availability of funds appropriated for the scholarship program.
Scholarship.
An estimated $13.7 million will be available for fiscal year (FY) 2016 awards. The IHS Scholarship Program (IHSSP) anticipates, but cannot guarantee, due to possible funding changes, student scholarship selections from any or all of the approved disciplines in the Preparatory, Pre-graduate or Health Professions Scholarship Programs for the scholarship period 2016-2017. Due to the rising cost of education and the decreasing number of scholars who can be funded by the IHSSP, the IHSSP has changed the funding policy for Preparatory and Pre-graduate Scholarship awards and reallocated a greater percentage of its funding in an effort to increase the number of Health Professions Scholarships, and inherently the number of service-obligated scholars, to better meet the health care needs of the IHS and its Tribal and urban Indian health care system partners.
Approximately 80 awards will be made under the Health Professions Preparatory and Pre-graduate Scholarship Programs for Indians. The awards are for ten months in duration, with an additional two months for approved summer school requests, and will cover both tuition and fees and other related costs (ORC). The average award to a full-time student is approximately $31,919.52. An estimated 245 awards will be made under the Indian Health Professions Scholarship Program. The awards are for 12 months in duration and will cover both tuition and fees and ORC. The average award to a full-time student is approximately $48,004.00. In FY 2016, an estimated $10,034,760 is available for Health Professions awards, and an estimated $3,687,137 is available for Preparatory and Pre-graduate awards.
The project period for the IHS Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship stipend support, tuition, fees and ORC is limited to two years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of two years, not to exceed four years for part-time students. The project period for the Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarship stipend support, tuition, fees and ORC is limited to four years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of four years, not to exceed eight years for part-time students. The IHS Indian Health Professions Scholarship provides stipend support, tuition, fees, and ORC and is limited to four years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of four years, not to exceed eight years for part-time students.
This is a limited competition announcement. New and continuation scholarship awards are limited to “Indians” as defined at 25 U.S.C. Section 1603(13).
The Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship awards are made to American Indians (Federally recognized Tribal members, including those from Tribes terminated since 1940, first and second degree descendants of Federally recognized Tribal members, State recognized Tribal members and first and second degree descendants of State recognized Tribal members), or Eskimo, Aleut and other Alaska Natives who:
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment in a compensatory, pre-professional general education course or curriculum.
The Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarship awards are made to American Indians (Federally recognized Tribal members, including those from Tribes terminated since 1940, first and second degree descendants of Tribal members, and State recognized Tribal members, first and second degree descendants of Tribal members), or Eskimo, Aleut and other Alaska Natives who:
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment or are enrolled in an accredited pre-graduate program leading to a baccalaureate degree in pre-medicine, pre-dentistry, pre-optometry or pre-podiatry.
The Indian Health Professions Scholarship may be awarded only to an individual who is a member of a Federally recognized Indian Tribe, Eskimo, Aleut or other Alaska Native as provided by Section 1603(13) of the IHCIA. Membership in a Tribe recognized only by a State does not meet this statutory requirement. To receive an Indian Health Professions Scholarship, an otherwise eligible individual must be enrolled in an appropriately accredited school and pursuing a course of study in a health profession as defined by Section 1603(10) of the IHCIA.
The Scholarship Program does not require matching funds or cost sharing to participate in the competitive grant process.
Awardees of the Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship, Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarship, or Health Professions Scholarship, who accept outside funding from other scholarship, grant and fee waiver programs, will have these monies applied to their student account tuition and fees charges at the college or university they are attending, before the IHS Scholarship Program will pay any of the remaining balance, unless said outside scholarship, grant or fee waiver award letter specifically excludes use for tuition and fees. These outside funding sources must be reported on the student's invoicing documents submitted by the college or university they are attending. Student loans and Veterans Administration (VA)/G.I. Bill Benefits accepted by Health Professions Scholarship recipients will have no effect on the IHSSP payment made to their college or university.
Applicants must go online to
This information is listed below. Please review the following list to identify the appropriate IHS ASC for your State.
Each applicant will be responsible for entering their basic applicant account information online, in addition to submitting a completed, original signature hard copy and one copy set of application documents, in accordance with the IHS Scholarship Program Application Handbook instructions, to the: IHS Scholarship Program Branch Office, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857. Applicants must initiate an application through the online portal or the application will be considered incomplete. For more information on how to use the online portal, go to
• Completed and signed online Application Checklist.
• Completed, printed, and signed IHSSP online application form for new or continuation student.
• Current Letter of Acceptance from college/university or proof of application to a college/university or health professions program.
• One set of official transcripts for all colleges/universities attended (or high school transcripts or Certificate of Completion of Home School Program or General Education Diploma (GED) for applicants who have not taken college courses).
• Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA): Calculated by the applicant.
• Applicant's Documents for Indian Eligibility.
A. If you are a member of a Federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide evidence of membership such as:
(1) Certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Certification: Form 4432-Category A or D, (whichever is applicable); or
(2) In the absence of BIA certification, documentation that you meet requirements of Tribal membership as prescribed by the charter, articles of incorporation or other legal instrument of the Tribe and have been officially designated as a Tribal member as evidenced by an accompanying document signed by an authorized Tribal official,
(3) Other evidence of Tribal membership satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior.
If you meet the criteria of Form 4432-Category B or C, you are eligible only for the Preparatory or Pre-graduate Scholarships, which have eligibility criteria as follows in Section B.
B. For Preparatory or Pre-graduate Scholarships, only: If you are a member
C. For Preparatory or Pre-graduate Scholarships, only: If you are not a Tribal member, but are a natural child or grandchild of a Tribal member you must submit: (1) Evidence of that fact,
• Two Faculty/Employer Evaluations with original signature.
• Online narratives-reasons for requesting the scholarship.
• Delinquent Debt Form with original signature.
• Course Curriculum Verification with original signature.
• Curriculum for Major.
Application Receipt Date: The online continuation application submission deadline for
Application Receipt Date:
Applications and supporting documents (original and one copy) shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received by the IHSSP branch office, postmarked on or before the deadline date. Applicants should request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks will not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing and the application will not be considered for funding.
New and continuation applicants may check the status of their application receipt and processing by logging into their online account at
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
No more than 5% of available funds will be used for part-time scholarships this fiscal year. Students are considered part-time if they are enrolled for a minimum of six hours of instruction and are not considered in full-time status by their college/university. Documentation must be received from part-time applicants that their school and course curriculum allows less than full-time status. Both part-time and full-time scholarship awards will be made in accordance with the authorizing statutes at 25 U.S.C. 1613 and 1613a and the regulations at 42 CFR part 136 Subpart J, Subdivisions J-3, J-4, and J-8 and this information will be published in all IHSSP Application and Student Handbooks as they pertain to the IHSSP.
New and continuation applicants are responsible for using the online application system. See section 3. Submission Dates for application deadlines.
Applications will be reviewed and scored with the following criteria.
• Academic Performance (40 points)
Applicants are rated according to their academic performance as evidenced by transcripts and faculty evaluations. In cases where a particular applicant's school has a policy not to rank students academically, faculty members are asked to provide a personal judgment of the applicant's achievement. Preparatory, Pre-graduate and Health Professions applicants with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 are not eligible for award.
• Faculty/Employer Recommendations (30 points)
Applicants are rated according to evaluations by faculty members, current and/or former employers and Tribal officials regarding the applicant's potential in the chosen health related professions.
• Stated Reasons for Asking for the Scholarship and Stated Career Goals Related to the Needs of the IHS (30 points)
Applicants must provide a brief written explanation of reasons for asking for the scholarship and of their career goals. Applicants are considered for scholarship awards based on their desired career goals and how these goals relate to current Indian health personnel needs.
The applicant's narrative will be judged on how well it is written and its content.
Applications for each health career category are reviewed and ranked separately.
• Applicants who are closest to graduation or completion of training are awarded first. For example, senior and junior applicants under the Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarship receive funding before freshmen and sophomores.
• Priority Categories
The following is a list of health professions that will be considered for funding in each scholarship program in FY 2016.
○ Indian Health Professions Preparatory Scholarships
A. Pre-Clinical Psychology (Jr. and Sr. undergraduate years only).
B. Pre-Nursing.
C. Pre-Pharmacy.
D. Pre-Social Work (Jr. and Sr. preparing for an MS in social work).
○ Indian Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarships
A. Pre-Dentistry.
B. Pre-Medicine.
C. Pre-Optometry.
D. Pre-Podiatry.
○ Indian Health Professions Scholarship
A. Chemical Dependency Counseling—Master's Degrees.
B. Clinical Psychology—Ph.D. or PsyD.
C. Coding Specialist—AAS degree.
D. Counseling Psychology—Ph.D.
E. Dentistry: DDS or DMD degrees.
F. Diagnostic Radiology Technology: AAS or BS.
G. Environmental Engineering: BS (Jr. and Sr. undergraduate years only).
H. Environmental Health/Sanitarian: BS (Jr. and Sr. undergraduate years only).
I. Health Records Administration: RHIT (AAS) and RHIA (BS).
J. Medical Technology: BS (Jr. and Sr. undergraduate years only).
K. Medicine: Allopathic and Osteopathic.
L. Nurse: Associate and Bachelor Degrees and advanced degrees in Psychiatry, Geriatric, Women's Health, Pediatric Nursing, Midwifery, Nurse Anesthetist, and Nurse Practitioner. (Priority consideration will be given to Registered Nurses employed by the IHS; in a program conducted under a contract or compact entered into under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638) and its amendments; or in a program assisted under Title V of the IHCIA).
M. Optometry: OD.
N. Pharmacy: PharmD.
O. Physician Assistant: PA-C.
P. Physical Therapy: MS and DPT.
Q. Podiatry: DPM.
R. Public Health Nutritionist: MS.
S. Respiratory Therapy: BS Degree.
T. Social Work: Masters Level only (Direct Practice and Clinical concentrations).
U. Ultrasonography (Prerequisite: Diagnostic Radiology Technology degree/certificate).
The applications will be reviewed and scored by the IHS Scholarship Program's Application Review Committee appointed by the IHS. Reviewers will not be allowed to review an application from their area or their own Tribe. Each application will be reviewed by three reviewers. The average score of the three reviews provides the final ranking score for each applicant. To determine the ranking of each applicant, these scores are sorted from the highest to the lowest within each scholarship health discipline by date of graduation and score. If several students have the same date of graduation and score within the same discipline, the computer will randomly sort the ranking list and will not sort by alphabetical name. Selections are then made from the top of each ranking list to the extent that funds allocated by the IHS among the three scholarships are available for obligation.
It is anticipated that recipients applying for extension of their scholarship funding will be notified in writing during the first week of June 2016 and new applicants will be notified in writing during the first week of July 2016. An Award Letter will be issued to successful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing, which will include a brief explanation of the reason(s) the application was not successful and provide the name of the IHS official to contact if more information is desired.
Regulations at 42 CFR 136.304 provide that the IHS shall, from time to time, publish a list of allied health professions eligible for consideration for the award of IHS Indian Health Professions Preparatory and Pre-graduate Scholarships and IHS Indian Health Professions Scholarships. Section 104(b)(1) of the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1613a(b)(1), authorizes the IHS to determine the distribution of scholarships among the health professions.
Awards for the Indian Health Professions Scholarships will be made in accordance with the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1613a and 42 CFR 136.330-136.334. Awardees shall incur a service obligation prescribed under the IHCIA, Section 1613a(b), which shall be met by service, through full-time clinical practice (as detailed on page 18 of the IHS Scholarship Program Service Commitment Handbook at
(1) In the IHS;
(2) In a program conducted under a contract or compact entered into under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638) and its amendments;
(3) In a program assisted under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-437) and its amendments; or
(4) In a private practice option of his or her profession if the practice (a) is situated in a health professional shortage area, designated in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and (b) addresses the health care needs of a substantial number (75% of the total served) of Indians as determined by the Secretary in accordance with guidelines of the Service.
Pursuant to the IHCIA Section 1613a(b)(3)(C), an awardee of an IHS Health Professions Scholarship may, at the election of the awardee, meet his/her service obligation prescribed under IHCIA Section 1613a(b) by a program specified in options (1)-(4) above that:
(i) Is located on the reservation of the Tribe in which the awardee is enrolled; or
(ii) Serves the Tribe in which the awardee is enrolled, if there is an open vacancy available in the discipline for which the awardee was funded under the IHS Health Professions Scholarship during the required 90-day placement period.
In summary, all awardees of the Indian Health Professions Scholarship are reminded that acceptance of this scholarship will result in a service obligation required by both statute and contract, which must be performed, through full-time clinical practice, at an approved service payback facility. The IHS Director (Director) reserves the right to make final decisions regarding assignment of scholarship recipients to fulfill their service obligation.
Moreover, the Director has the authority to make the final determination, designating a facility, whether managed and operated by IHS, or one of its Tribal or urban Indian partners, consistent with IHCIA, as approved for scholar obligated service payback.
It is the policy of the IHS that a scholarship awardee funded under the Indian Health Professions Scholarship Program of the IHCIA must maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA, remain in good academic standing each semester/trimester/quarter, maintain full-time student status (institutional definition of “minimum hours” constituting full-time enrollment applies) or part-time student status (institutional definition of “minimum and maximum” hours constituting part-time enrollment applies) for the entire academic year, as indicated on the scholarship application submitted for that academic year. The Health Professions Scholarship awardee may not change his or her enrollment status between terms of enrollment during the same academic year. New recipients may not request a Leave of Absence during the first year of their funding. In addition to these requirements, a Health Professions Scholarship awardee must be enrolled in an approved/accredited school for a health professions degree.
An awardee of a scholarship under the IHS Health Professions Preparatory and Health Professions Pre-graduate Scholarship authority must maintain a minimum 2.0 cumulative GPA, remain in good standing each semester/trimester/quarter and be a full-time
The following reports must be sent to the IHSSP at the identified time frame. Each scholarship awardee will have access to online Student and Service Commitment Handbooks and required program forms and instructions on when, how, and to whom these must be submitted, by logging into the IHSSP Web site at
Within thirty (30) days from the beginning of each semester/trimester/quarter, scholarship awardees must submit a Recipient's Initial Program Progress Report (Form IHS-856-8, found on the IHS Scholarship Program Web site at
Within thirty (30) days from the end of each academic period,
If at any time during the semester/trimester/quarter, scholarship awardees are advised to reduce the number of credit hours for which they are enrolled below the minimum of the 12 (or the number of hours considered by their school as full-time) for a full-time student or at least six hours for part-time students, or if they experience academic problems, they must submit this report (Form IHS-856-9, found on the IHS Scholarship Program Web site at
• Change of Academic Status
Scholarship awardees must immediately notify their Scholarship Program Analyst if they are placed on academic probation, dismissed from school, or voluntarily withdraw for any reason (personal or medical).
• Change of Health Discipline
Scholarship awardees may not change from the approved IHSSP health discipline during the school year. If an unapproved change is made, scholarship payments will be discontinued.
• Change in Graduation Date
Any time that a change occurs in a scholarship awardee's expected graduation date, they must notify their Scholarship Program Analyst immediately in writing. Justification must be attached from the school advisor.
1. Questions on the application process may be directed to the appropriate IHS Area Scholarship Coordinator.
2. Questions on other programmatic matters may be addressed to: Chief, Scholarship Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-6197 (This is not a toll-free number).
3. Questions on payment information may be directed to: Mr. Craig Boswell, Grants Scholarship Coordinator, Division of Grants Management, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: (07E57B), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-0243 (This is not a toll-free number).
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible health and allied professions is effective for applicants for the 2016-2017 academic year. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded. Applicants who apply for health career categories not listed as priorities during the current scholarship cycle will not be considered for a scholarship award.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Council of Councils.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
A portion of 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Council of Council's home page at
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 Mental Health Services (CMHS) is requesting clearance for the revision of data collection associated with the previously-approved cross-site evaluation of the Garrett Lee Smith (GLS) Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Program (GLS Suicide Prevention Program), now entitled National Outcomes Evaluation (NOE). The NOE is a proposed redesign of the currently-approved cross-site evaluation (OMB No. 0930-0286; Expiration, January 2017) that builds on prior published GLS evaluation proximal and distal training and aggregate findings from program activities (e. g., Condron et al., 2014; Walrath et al., 2015). As a result of the vast body of information collected and analyzed through the cross-site evaluation of the two GLS Suicide Prevention Programs components—the GLS State/Tribal Program and the GLS Campus Program—SAMHSA has identified areas for additional investigation and the types of inquiry needed to move the evaluation into its next phase.
The NOE aims to address the field's need for additional evidence on the impacts of the GLS Suicide Prevention Program in three areas: (1) Suicide prevention training effectiveness, (2) early identification and referral on subsequent care follow-up and adherence, and (3) suicide safer care practices within health care settings. The evaluation comprises three distinct, but interconnected core studies—Training, Continuity of Care (COC), and Suicide Safer Environment (SSE). The Training and SSE studies also have “enhanced” study components. Core study data align with required program
The NOE builds on information collected through the four-stage cross-site evaluation approach (context, product, process, and impact) to further the field of suicide prevention and mental health promotion. Of notable importance, the design now accounts for differences in State/Tribal and Campus program grant funding cycles (i. e., 5-year State/Tribal and 3-year Campus programs), while also establishing continuity with and maximizing utility of data previously collected. Further, the evaluation meets the legislative requirements outlined in the GLSMA to inform performance and implementation of programs.
Eleven data collection activities compose the NOE—two new instruments, three previously-approved instruments, and six previously-approved and improved instruments. As GLS program foci differ by grantee type, some instruments will apply to either State/Tribal or Campus programs only. Of the 11 instruments, 2 will be administered with State/Tribal and Campus grantees (tailored to grantee type), 6 are specific to State/Tribal grantees, and 3 pertain only to Campus grantees.
Due to the fulfillment of data collection goals, six currently-approved instruments and their associated burden will be removed. The combined estimated annual burden for these instruments is 4,300 hours. These include the
Three instruments will be administered only in OMB Year 1 to finalize data collection for the current cross-site evaluation protocol. Each instrument was previously approved as part of the four-stage approach (OMB No. 0930-0286; Expiration, January 2017) and no changes are being made. These include the State/Tribal Referral Network Survey (RNS), TUP-S Campus Version, and Campus Short Message Service Survey (SMSS). Each instrument will be discontinued once the associated data collection requirement has been fulfilled.
Six currently-approved instruments will be revised for the NOE. Each of the instruments, or an iteration thereof, has received approval through multiple cross-site evaluation packages cleared by OMB. As such, the information gathered has been, and will continue to be, crucial to this effort and to the field of suicide prevention and mental health promotion.
Prevention Strategies Inventory (PSI): The PSI has been updated to enhance the utility and accuracy of the data collected. Changes capture different strategies implemented and products distributed by grantee programs, the population of focus for each strategy, total GLS budget expenditures, and the percent of funds allocated by the activity type.
Training Activity Summary Page (TASP): New items on the TASP gather information about the use of behavioral rehearsal and/or role-play and resources provided at trainings—practices that have been found to improve retention of knowledge and skills posttraining. In addition, understanding how skills can be maintained over time with materials provided at trainings (
Training Utilization and Preservation Survey (TUP-S) 3 and 6-month follow up: The TUP-S has been improved to examine posttraining behaviors and utilization of skills by training participants—factors known to improve understanding of the comprehensive training process and the impact of training on identifications, referrals, and service use. The survey now requests information about training resources received, practice components, trainee participation in role play, and previous suicide prevention trainings attended; experience intervening with a suicidal individual (from QPR evaluation tool), intended use of the training, and referral behaviors; and previous contact and quality of relationships with youth. Broad items about training others, the use/intended use of skills, and barriers/facilitators have been removed. The consent-to-contact form has been modified to add brief items about the trainee and previous identifications/referrals. The TUP-S will be administered at 3 and 6 months post-training to a random sample of training participants via CATI (2000 ST TUP-S 3-mo/600 ST TUP-S 6-mo per year).
Early Intervention, Referral, and Follow-up Individual Form (EIRF-I): The EIRF-I has been improved to gather initial follow-up information about youth identified as being at risk as a result of the State/Tribal GLS program (whether or not a service was received after referral). In addition, EIRF-I (1) data elements have been expanded to include screening practices, screening tools, and screening results of youth identified as at-risk for suicide; (2) response options have been expanded/refined (
EIRF Screening Form (EIRF-S): Data elements have been added to indicate whether State/Tribal screenings were performed at the individual- or group-level. New response options have been added under “screening tool” and “false positive” has been removed.
Student Behavioral Health Form (SBHF): the SBHF (formerly entitled the MIS) has been expanded and renamed. The Campus form has been enhanced to include referral and follow-up procedure questions (rather than simply counts); numbers screened, identified at risk, receiving suicide-specific services, referred, and receiving follow-up; and age and gender breakdowns of suicide attempts and deaths. Student enrollment/retention items have been removed; these will be obtained through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. The SBHF will require closer involvement with campus behavioral health/health providers to gather data on procedural questions and screenings, risk assessment, services, referrals, and follow-ups.
Four instruments will augment the evaluation—two are newly developed instruments and two represent new versions of existing instruments.
TUP-S RCT (Baseline and 12-Month versions): the TUP-S RCT refers to versions administered as part of the Training Study RCT. The RCT collects TUP-S data at baseline (pre-training) and 3, 6, and 12 months after training.
Behavior Health Provider Survey (BHPS): the BHPS is a new State/Tribal data collection activity and the first to specifically target behavioral health providers partnering with GLS grantees. Data will include information about referrals for at-risk youth, SSE care practices implemented, and client outcomes (number of suicide attempts and deaths). A total of 1-10 respondents from each State/Tribal grantee's partnering behavioral health provider will participate annually.
The estimated response burden to collect this information associated with the redesigned National Outcomes Evaluation is as follows annualized over the requested 3-year clearance period is presented below:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by January 25, 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:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on January 13, 2016, in New Orleans, LA. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on Wednesday, January 13, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CST. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
For members of the public who plan to attend the meeting in person, please register either online at
For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, please register online at
Members of the public who are pre-registered and later require cancellation, please do so in advance of the meeting by accessing one (1) of the following links:
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Customs House, 423 Canal Street, Conference Room Number 316, New Orleans, LA 70130. Please allow time to go through the security check point before the meeting. There will be signage posted directing visitors to the location of the conference room.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 344-1661 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the “Agenda” section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than January 6, 2016, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2015-0057, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on January 13, 2016. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP Web page,
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will discuss the Trade Efficiency Survey and hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed on those topics:
1. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss the progress of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise Uniformity (“Centers”) Working Group. The subcommittee will provide an update on their review of the original COAC recommendations for Centers and what areas they have identified for Centers to develop uniform policies, processes and strategies, with consideration of an industry-focused and account-based approach. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress of the International Engagement and Trade Facilitation Working Group which is identifying examples of best practices in the U.S. and abroad that facilitate trade and could be applied globally. Additionally, the subcommittee will also discuss the formation of a Role of the Broker 2016 working group to provide updated recommendations for revising 19 CFR 111.
2. The Exports Subcommittee Manifest Working Group will discuss the upcoming Air Manifest Pilot and the refocusing/renewal of the Post Departure Filing Working Group (formally Option 4 workgroup).
3. The One U.S. Government Subcommittee will discuss progress of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Single Window effort and the previous COAC recommendations related to this matter. The subcommittee will provide input on trade readiness and partner government agencies' readiness for the upcoming February 28, 2016, ACE implementation of the Single Window. There will also be an update from the North American Single Window Vision Working Group.
4. The Trade Enforcement and Revenue Collection Subcommittee will discuss the progress made on the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group and the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Working Group, and outline the plans for the Bond Working Group.
5. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will review and discuss recommendations related to the Pipeline Working Group and also provide an update on pilot discussions with industry.
6. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will report on the status of the Trusted Trader Pilot, the next steps for implementation, and the vision of an enhanced Trusted Trader concept that includes engagement with CBP to include relevant partner government agencies with a potential for international interoperability.
Meeting materials will be available by January 6, 2016, at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Holders or Containers which enter the United States Duty Free. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before February 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
19 CFR 10.41 provides that substantial holders or containers are to have prescribed markings in clear and conspicuous letters of such a size that they will be easily discernable. Section 10.41b of the CBP regulations eliminates the need for an importer to file entry documents by instead requiring the marking of the containers or holders to indicate the HTSUS numbers that provide for duty free treatment of the containers or holders.
In order to comply with 19 CFR 10.41b, the owner of the holder or container is required to place the markings on a metal tag or plate containing the following information: 9801.00.10, HTSUS; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner. In the case of serially numbered holders or containers of foreign manufacture for which free clearance under 9803.00.50 HTSUS is claimed, the owner must place markings containing the following information: 9803.00.50 HTSUS; the port code numbers of the port of entry; the entry number; the last two digits of the fiscal year of entry covering the importation of the holders and containers on which duty was paid; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner.
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS; Privacy Office, DHS; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the Privacy Office (Privacy), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announce the availability of the following document: “Best Practices for Protecting Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Programs.” DHS has made the best practices document available on the Internet at the following locations:
Mark Becker, Senior Policy Advisor, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
The development of a new technology, significant improvement of a current technology, or the new application of an existing technology often results in concerns about the impact on individual privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The integration of government and commercial unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System by 2015, as required by the
DHS publishes these best practices to inform DHS and our local, state, and federal government partners and grantees interested in establishing unmanned aircraft programs grounded in policies and procedures that are respectful of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. These best practices are not prescriptive, but represent an optimal approach to sustaining privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties throughout the lifecycle of an unmanned aircraft systems program. Although the intended audience is DHS and other government agencies, the private sector may also find these practices instructive in creating or operating unmanned aircraft programs.
The best practices document is consistent with the February 15, 2015 Presidential Memorandum,
This best practices document was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Amendment to notice of availability.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Eastern Oklahoma Region has prepared a draft environmental impact statement for the management of oil and gas resources owned by the United States in trust for the Osage in Osage County, Oklahoma. This notice amends the notice of availability published in the
Written comments must be received no later than January 15, 2016.
You may mail, email, hand deliver, or fax written comments to Ms. Jeannine Hale, BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, P.O. Box 8002, Muskogee, OK 74402-8002; fax (918) 781-4667; email:
Ms. Jeannine Hale, Division of Environmental and Cultural Resources, BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, P.O. Box 8002, Muskogee, OK 74402-8002, (918) 781-4660.
The proposed action for this EIS is to update and provide additional analysis on the impacts of the BIA lease and permit approval program to facilitate the development of oil and gas in Osage County in an efficient manner that prevents pollution.
This notice is published in accordance with Section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that identified public lands administered by the Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are temporarily closed to all public entry.
This closure will be in effect beginning on December 24, 2015 and will remain in effect for 2 years unless rescinded or modified before that by the authorized officer or designated Federal officer.
John R. Kalish, Field Manager, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262, (760) 833-7100. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individuals during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal hours.
This closure affects public lands north of the Bradshaw Trail, a county-maintained roadway in Riverside County, California, but does not include the roadway itself. The legal description of the affected public lands is:
The area described aggregates 628.99 acres, more or less, in Riverside County, California.
The closure is necessary because of public health and safety risks caused by the potential for encounter with unexploded ordinance and other hazardous materials located on the lands. The approximately 628.99 acres of public lands were until recently part of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range and were used as part of a live bombing and training facility. The Department of the Navy is in the process of developing a response action plan to clean the contaminated parcels. Once the parcels are successfully cleaned, the BLM will reopen the lands to the public. All motor vehicles must remain on routes designated as open to vehicular use. The lands are closed to all forms of public entry, including dispersed camping, or other recreational activities on the approximately 628.99 acres.
The following persons are exempt from this order: Federal, State, and local officers and employees in the performance of their official duties; members of organized rescue or fire-fighting forces in the performance of their official duties; and persons with written authorization from the Bureau of Land Management.
Any person who violates this closure may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned for no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of California law.
43 CFR 8364.1(c)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This order transfers administrative jurisdiction of 501.43 acres of public lands from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Navy for the realignment of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range boundary in Riverside County, California. This transfer of administrative jurisdiction is directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
John R. Kalish, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262, 760-833-7100. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339 to reach the above contact. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Public Law 113-66, directs the realignment of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range boundary to include the lands described in this order.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Public Law 113-66, 127 Stat. 1040, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the administrative jurisdiction of the following described public lands is hereby transferred from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy for the realignment of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range boundary:
The area described aggregates 501.43 acres.
2. The lands described above are to be administered as part of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Department of the Navy has submitted a Notice of Intention to Relinquish 1,958.49 acres of lands in Riverside County, California, withdrawn from the public domain by the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. The lands were withdrawn for military purposes on behalf of the Department of the Navy for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range.
John R. Kalish, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262; 760-833-7100. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339 to reach the above contact. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Section 2966(a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Title XXIX of Public Law 113-66 (127 Stat. 1040), requires the Secretary of the Navy to relinquish approximately 2,000 acres of public land withdrawn for military use that is located immediately north of the Bradshaw Trail in Riverside County, California. Pursuant to Section 2922(c) of Public Law 113-66, the Secretary of the Interior is required to publish the Navy's Notice of Intention to Relinquish the public lands withdrawn for military use under Title VIII of Public Law 103-433. In compliance with sections 2922(a) and 2966(a)(3) of Public Law 113-66, on December 8, 2015, the Department of the Navy submitted its Notice of Intention to Relinquish the following described lands:
The area described aggregates 1,958.49 acres.
Pursuant to Public Law 113-66, the Department of the Navy is required to decontaminate the public lands being relinquished and returned to the Department of the Interior to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The decontamination process has been initiated and the Bureau of Land Management continues to coordinate with the Department of the Navy. It has been determined that the lands may be contaminated with unfired 50 caliber and 20 mm rounds of ammunitions in addition to larger unexploded ordnance. The overall average density of munitions or munitions debris on site appears to be less than 1 pound per acre. The lands have been entered into the Military Munitions Response Program which will further assess risks to the public and identify mitigation measures—protective measures such as increased signage and public education warning of UXO dangers—that may be necessary. Restrictions on excavations may be put into place.
The determination concerning the contaminated state of the land may be found at the Marine Corp Air Station Yuma Environmental Department Web site at
The withdrawal relinquishment notice will be processed in accordance with Public Law 113-66, Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, (43 U.S.C. 1714), and the Bureau of Land Management regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2370. Alternatives to the relinquishment may be considered as stated under Section 2922(d)(2) of Public Law 113-66.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 21, 2015, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by January 8, 2016.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their
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.
A request for removal has been received for the following resources:
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve an information collection (IC) concerning a national household survey that will be used to help determine the perceptions of the American public regarding the national park system. The collection will include no more than 40 cognitive interviews to refine survey questions and a final survey instrument based on the findings from those interviews. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
To ensure that your comments on this IC are considered, we must receive them on or before February 22, 2016.
Direct all written comments on this IC to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collection Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
Bret Meldrum, Chief, Social Science Program, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
On August 25, 2006—the 90th anniversary of the National Park Service (NPS)—Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne launched the National Park Centennial Initiative to prepare national parks for another century of conservation, preservation and enjoyment. Since then we have asked citizens, park partners, experts and other stakeholders what they envisioned for a second century of national parks. In celebration of our 100th anniversary in 2016, and to keep up with the initiative, we are proposing a national household survey to assess the quality of services available to the American public provided by the national parks. This survey will be used to assess the values and perceptions of both visitors and non-visitors needed to understand, sustain and enhance the relevancy of the national park system in an increasingly multicultural society.
We acknowledge that there are traditional in-park surveys of visitors at selected National Parks within the system each year; however, these park specific surveys cannot provide the
We will pre-test the survey questions by conducting cognitive interviews of no more than 40 people in order to test and refine the final survey instrument. This will be a nationwide telephone survey using a dual sampling frame to include random-digit dial (RDD) land line and cell phone numbers. The survey will also include five to seven questions that will be used to evaluate youth engagement. Parental consent will be required before interviewing children/teens between the ages of 12 to 17.
The information obtained from this collection will serve as a benchmark to describe the breadth of uses and patterns of involvement with agency offerings beyond traditional park visits that will extend into the next century.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• The practical utility of the information being gathered;
• The accuracy of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 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 the collection of information for one of its Technical Training Program forms: Nomination and Request for Payment. This information collection activity was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and assigned control number 1029-0120.
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 for the OSMRE Technical Training Nomination and Request for Payment Form (OSM-105). 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
January 5, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-468 and 731-TA-1166-1167 (Review) (Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China and Mexico). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on January 15, 2016.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective November 12, 2014, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Cornerstone Chemical Company, Waggaman, Louisiana. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on December 18, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4585 (December 2015), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Notice of registration.
Alltech Associates, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Alltech Associates, Inc. registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated August 21, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Alltech Associates, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import these controlled substances for the manufacture of reference standards.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before January 25, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before January 25, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on September 1, 2015, Almac Clinical Services Incorp (ACSI), 25 Fretz Road, Souderton, Pennsylvania 18964 applied to be registered as an importer of Morphine (9300), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in dosage form, for clinical trial only. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department or DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data on the Form ETA-9142A,
The forms are used by employers in the H-2A temporary agricultural employment-based program to collect information that demonstrates compliance with program requirements.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before February 22, 2016.
Submit written comments to Brian Pasternak, National Director of Temporary Programs, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment & Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, Box 12-200 NW., Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: (202) 513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-513-7495. Email:
The information collection (IC) is required by sections 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a); 214(c); and 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1011(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and 1188) and 8 CFR 214.2(h). Before an employer may petition for any temporary foreign workers, it must submit a request for certification to the Secretary of Labor containing the elements prescribed by the INA and the Department's implementing regulations, which differ depending on the visa program under which the foreign workers are sought. The H-2A program enables employers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural work of a temporary or seasonal nature as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a). For purposes of the H-2A program, the INA and governing federal regulations require the Secretary of Labor to certify, among other things, that any foreign worker seeking to enter the United States (U.S.) temporarily for the purpose of performing certain unskilled labor will not, by doing so, adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. The Secretary must also certify that there are not sufficient U.S. workers available to
The information contained in the Form ETA-9142A is the basis for the Secretary's determination that no U.S. workers are available. The Form ETA-9142A,
Lastly, the Department is proposing revisions to Appendix A to reflect the requirements of 20 CFR 655.200-235, which are the new regulatory requirements for H-2A employers who are in the sheep and goat herding and range production of livestock occupations.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record. Commenters are encouraged not to submit sensitive information (
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the Solicitation of Nominations for the Iqbal Masih Award for the Elimination of Child Labor information collection request (ICR), as part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit written comments on or before February 22, 2016.
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
The DOL Iqbal Masih Award for the Elimination of Child Labor, presented by the Secretary of Labor, is intended to recognize exceptional efforts to reduce the worst forms of child labor. The Award was created in response to a Senate Committee mandate directing the Secretary of Labor to establish an annual non-monetary award recognizing extraordinary efforts by an individual, company, organization, or national government to reduce the worst forms of child labor. The DOL is proposing to extend this ICR to allow the public to nominate and provide critical information on proposed candidates for this award who have demonstrated extraordinary efforts to combat the worst forms of child labor.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
The DOL, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before they are submitted to the OMB. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) “Placement Verification and Follow Up of Job Corps Participants” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before January 25, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Seleda Perryman by telephone at 202-693-4131, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Placement Verification and Follow-up of Job Corps Participants information collection. The collection consists of three primary and two secondary data collection instruments used to collect follow-up data on individuals who are no longer actively participating in Job Corps. The instruments are comprised of modules that include questions designed to obtain the following information: Re-verification of initial job and/or school placements, employment and educational experiences, job search activities of those who are neither working nor in school, and information about former participants' satisfaction with services received. Workforce Investment Act (Pub. L. 107-210, Title I Subtitle C) authorizes, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor.
To amend the Stand Down
The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) supports local Stand Down events that help homeless veterans attain meaningful civilian employment. Authority to support such events is in 38 U.S.C. Section 2021, which provides that the “Secretary of Labor shall conduct, directly or through grant or contract, such programs as the Secretary determines appropriate to provide job training, counseling, and placement services (including job readiness and literacy and skills training) to expedite the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force.” A Stand Down is a local community event where homeless veterans are provided a wide variety of services and incentives to reintegrate into their community, such as housing opportunities, healthcare, and employment opportunities, Stand Down funding is provided in the form of non-competitive grants that are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis until available funding is exhausted.
VETS anticipates that approximately $600,000 will be available to award approximately 70 grants in each Federal FY covered by this solicitation. The Federal FY begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year. Awards will be made for a maximum of $10,000 per multi-day event or $7,000 per one-day event.
VETS is now accepting applications for grant awards to fund Stand Down events in FY 2015. All applications for Stand Down grant funding must be submitted to the appropriate state Director for Veterans' Employment and Training (DVET). Applications will be accepted up to six (6) months prior to the event. Please allow up to 60 days to process your application. Address and contact information for each state DVET can be found at:
Stand Down grant awards are contingent upon a Federal appropriation or a continuing resolution each Federal FY. Therefore, applications submitted after July 1 for events to be held after September 30 may be held for consideration contingent upon Federal funding availability during the upcoming FY. Grant applicants cannot obligate grant funding toward Stand Down expenses prior to receiving a Notice of Award from the Grant Officer; any such expenses will be disallowed.
Each year, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training awards Stand Down grants to assist with the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force through programs that enhance employment and training opportunities and promote self-sufficiency. Typically, services available at these events include: Temporary shelter, showers, haircuts, meals, clothing, hygiene care kits, medical examinations, immunizations, legal advice, state identification cards, veteran benefit information, training program information, employment services, and referral to other supportive services.
Stand Down funding is provided in the form of non-competitive grants that are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis until available funding is exhausted. For the purpose of a Stand Down grant award, applicants must describe a plan that clearly demonstrates how grant funding will only be used for homeless veterans. While both veterans and non-veterans may participate in Stand Down events, grant funding can only be used to purchase items including food and meals, for homeless veteran participants. The following minimum services
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—benefits, medical and mental health services;
Department of Labor (DOL)—State Workforce Agency (SWA) employment and training services to include
Referral services to secure immediate emergency housing.
Stand Down grant funds must be used to enhance employment and training opportunities or to promote the self-sufficiency of homeless veterans through paid work. Homeless veterans do not always have access to basic hygiene supplies necessary to maintain their health and confidence. Lack of shelter limits their ability to prepare for and present themselves at job interviews or be contacted for follow-up. Basic services such as showers, haircuts, attention to health concerns and other collaborative services provided at a Stand Down can give the homeless veteran greater confidence, improving their chances of securing and maintaining employment. Therefore, grant funds may be used to support Stand Down activities such as:
The purchase of food, bottled water, clothing, sleeping bags, one-person tents, backpacks filled with non-perishable foods, hygiene care kits, and non-prescription reading glasses.
Vouchers may be purchased for minor time-limited legal services, consumer credit counseling services, food, and gasoline gift cards for homeless veteran participants. The purchase of gift cards for food and/or gas must be restricted to cards that can only be used to purchase food or gas. Federal awards may not be used for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products; see 2 CFR part 200.423. All grantees purchasing gift cards with grant funds will be required to state the measures they will use to comply with this regulation.
The purchase of job search media such as employment guides or literature in hard copy or on portable storage media, etc.
Special one-time costs for the duration of the Stand Down event such as rental of facilities and/or tents, electricity, equipment, portable toilets and communications or Internet access.
The purchase of janitorial supplies, kitchen supplies, and advertising materials such as event posters. Care should be taken to minimize advertisement costs in order to maximize funding available to purchase items or provide services that immediately and positively impact the veteran in need. Applicants that request funding for advertisement expenses that appear to be unreasonable (
The hiring of security personnel.
The rental of transportation equipment (bus, van, car, taxi, etc.) to provide transportation of homeless veterans to and from the Stand Down event.
The purchase or rental of other pertinent items and services for homeless veteran participants and their families as deemed appropriate by VETS, such as clothing, hygiene kits, diapers, etc.
Only expenses incurred during the time frame listed on the Notice of Award will be approved as allowable expenses. Any expenses incurred prior to or after the time frame listed on the Notice of Award will be disapproved.
Stand Down grant funds may not be used to pay for administrative costs or administrative and/or programmatic staff. Stand Down grant funds may not be used to purchase clothing items for volunteers, pen sets, military and veteran type patches/medals, memento gifts for staff members, visitors, or volunteers (
Stand Down grant funding cannot be used to pay for health care related expenses. All medical examinations, to include dental and optometry examinations, should be provided by the VA or a community provider. Purchases of prescription eye wear and dental work are considered medical care expenses and are not allowable. Applicants should explore all opportunities to secure health related services through the local VA Medical Center or VA Outpatient Clinic. Non-prescription reading glasses are considered an allowable expense.
VETS reserves the right to disapprove any proposed cost not consistent with the funding restrictions in this announcement.
The maximum amount that can be awarded to support a multiple day Stand Down event in a geographically specific area is $10,000 per applicant per fiscal year. If the event is held for one (1) day, the maximum amount that can be awarded is $7,000. Grants may be awarded to multiple organizations who conduct Stand Downs in the same general area so long as there is no commingling of federal funds. Multiple grants may be awarded to the same organization if the organization is conducting Stand Downs in different geographic areas. In this case, the applications are processed in the order received.
The following organizations may apply for grants under this solicitation: State and local Workforce Investment Boards, Veterans Service Organizations, local public agencies, tribal governments, and non-profit organizations including community and faith-based organizations. Organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)(4) organizations are not eligible to apply for this funding opportunity.
Cost sharing and matching funds are not required. However, VETS strongly encourages applicants to leverage other available resources to maximize the services and incentives provided to homeless veteran participants at Stand Down events.
A. As of July 2012, all applicants must register with the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting an application. SAM is a Web-enabled government wide application that collects, validates, stores, and disseminates business information about the Federal government's trading partners in support of contract award, grants, and the electronic payment process. Step by step instructions for registering with SAM can be found at:
B. All applicants for Federal funding are required to include a Dun and Bradstreet Number (DUNS) with their application. Applicants can obtain a DUNS number at:
To be considered responsive, all applications for Stand Down grant funding must include:
1. An original applicant memorandum requesting Stand Down funds
2. Applicants must provide a Program Narrative that clearly states the need for the Stand Down and describes the event.
A. The narrative must detail the geographical area to be served and the estimated number of homeless veterans to be served. The narrative must also describe how during the event the number of homeless veterans and other participants will be tracked. It should also describe how provision of services and take-up rates will be tracked. Note: Grant recipients will be required to report these outputs during grant close-out.
B. The narrative must explain the role of the DVOP specialist or other AJC staff.
C. The narrative must describe the activities of the event. Please describe the basic or core activities made available during the event as described in section I. Basic or core services are: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—benefits, medical and mental health services; Department of Labor—State Workforce Agency employment and training services to include Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialist or other American Job Center staff, and referral services to secure immediate emergency housing. Please describe other activities and services made available during the event that cannot be classified as basic or core.
D. The narrative must include a timeline for completion of all Stand Down event activities. The timeline must clearly indicate critical dates in the planning, execution, and follow-up process. If applicable, the timeline will demonstrate the need to draw down awarded funding in advance of the event date with the purpose and date of the funding need.
E. The narrative must describe what challenges may arise during event planning and execution and what solutions would be utilized.
3. An original Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance, (OMB No. 4040-0004)
4. A SF 424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (OMB No. 4040-0006). The SF-424A can be downloaded from
5. A Budget Narrative—A detailed description of each planned expenditure listed on the SF 424A. The description should describe or indicate the methodology used to determine the cost estimates such as price per quantity, if the item will be purchased or rented, and whether the items will be utilized by the homeless veteran participants, other homeless participants or assist the volunteer(s) at the event. VETS does not accept categories designated
6. A copy of the SAM Registration active through date of event.
7. A minimum of four letters of support must be provided, and must include letters from:
A. the state or local AJC and/or DVOP specialist(s) stating they will provide Department of Labor-funded employment and training services at the Stand Down. These basic or core services are required in Section I.
B. the VA stating what benefits, medical and mental health services will be available at the event as required in Section I, and
C. the organization that will provide immediate emergency housing based on referrals from the Stand Down event as required in Section I.
D. different organizations such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the local Continuum of Care, Veteran Service Organizations, State and local government agencies, local businesses, and local non-profit organizations including community-based and faith-based organizations that will support the event.
8. If applicable, a copy of the Internal Revenue Service documentation indicating approval of non-profit status, for example: 501(c)(3), 501(c)(19).
9. Applicants have the option to use a consolidated Stand Down application that consolidates several of the documents above into one document (see Appendix C).
Stand Down funding is a non-competitive grant awarded on a first-come, first-served basis until available funding is exhausted for the fiscal year. Funding is subject to approval by the Grant Officer and is dependent upon various factors such as urban, rural and geographic balance, the availability of funds, prior performance and proposals that are most advantageous to the government. If approved, the Grant Officer will notify the grantee through a Notice of Award. Under no circumstances will a Stand Down event be awarded funding after the event has taken place.
Upon award, grantees will receive a Personal Identification Number (PIN) and password for e-Grants, the Federal financial reporting system, from the Grant Officer. If a grantee does not receive a PIN and password for e-Grants, the grantee must notify the DVET immediately. Access to e-Grants is required in order to comply with Federal financial reporting requirements.
The grantee will also receive a financial form to complete in order for the USDOL Office of Financial Management Operations to set up an account in the Health and Human Services, Payment Management System (HHS/PMS). The grantee must submit the completed form as directed in order to electronically draw down awarded funding. The form should be returned via FedEx, UPS, or other non-U.S. Postal Service provider to avoid processing delays. Questions or problems relating to accessing funding or the electronic draw down process should be referred to the USDOL Office of Financial Management Operations at (202) 693-6903.
After setting up the account, the grantee will be able to draw down funds to reimburse approved expenses incurred after award and to cover approved expenses that will be paid within three (3) days of the draw down. Funds requested for draw down through the HHS/PMS are directly deposited into the designated account within 24 hours of the request. Funding will be made available for draw down no earlier than 120 days prior to the event date, or as identified in the timeline. The timeline must include the date the post-event report is due to the DVET (30 days following the end of the Federal fiscal quarter in which the Stand Down was
After receiving a grant award, the grantee must complete a Federal Financial Report (SF 425) no later than 30 days after the end of each Federal fiscal quarter (October 31, January 31, April 30 and July 31). Instructions for completing this requirement are provided in the HHS/PMS information packet and are also available at:
All grant awarded funds must be drawn down by the grantee within 90 calendar days after the Stand Down. For example, if a Stand Down is held on July 12, 2014 (FY 2014), all funds should be drawn down within 90 days or by October 10, 2014 (FY 2015).
A final SF 425 is due no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Federal fiscal quarter in which all expended funds have been drawn down. For example, if a Stand Down is held on July 27 and the final drawdown of all expended funds occurs on September 15, the final FFR is due on October 30.
In addition to financial reporting, the grantee is required to submit a Stand Down After Action Report (a post-event report) to the DVET at the same time the final SF 425 is completed. Please refer to Appendix D.
Grantees that anticipate a delay in submitting any SF 425 report or the post-event report should immediately contact the appropriate DVET and provide a justification to request an extension. If VETS disapproves a particular expenditure, and the funds were already drawn down, the grantee will be notified in writing with an explanation for the disapproval and instructions to electronically return the funds to the HHS/PMS account within fifteen (15) calendar days of notification from VETS.
Any failure to comply with the guidance and reporting requirements set forth in the Stand Down Special Grant Provisions provided with the Grant Award letter will be taken into consideration in future funding award decisions by USDOL/VETS.
Questions regarding this announcement should be directed to the DVET in your state. Contact information for each DVET is located in the VETS Staff Directory at the following Web page:
A. Printed Materials/Intellectual Property: In all circumstances, the following must be displayed on printed materials prepared by the grantee while in receipt of USDOL grant funding: “Preparation of this item was funded by the United States Department of Labor under Grant No. [Insert the appropriate grant number].” All printed materials must also include the following notice: “This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service. The product was created by the grantee and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor and/or the Veterans' Employment and Training Service. The U.S. Department of Labor and/or the Veterans' Employment and Training Service makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, expressed or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This product is copyrighted by the institution that created it. Internal use by an organization and/or personal use by an individual for non-commercial purposes are permissible. All other uses require the prior authorization of the copyright owner.”
B. Public references to grant: When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds must clearly state:
• The percentage of the total costs of the program or project that will be financed with Federal money;
• The dollar amount of Federal financial assistance for the project or program; and
• The percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.
C. Use of USDOL Logo: The Grant Officer must approve the use of the USDOL logo. In addition, once approval is given the following guidance is provided:
• The USDOL logo may be applied to USDOL-funded material prepared for distribution, including posters, videos, pamphlets, research documents, national survey results, impact evaluations, best practice reports, and other publications of global interest. The grantee(s) must consult with USDOL on whether the logo may be used on any such items prior to final draft or final preparation for distribution. In no event will the USDOL logo be placed on any item until USDOL has given the grantee permission to use the logo on the item.
• All documents must include the following notice: “This documentation does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.”
OMB Information Collection No 1225-0086, Expires January 31, 2016. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average three (3) hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary, authority to support such events is in 38 U.S.C. 2021, which provides that the “Secretary of Labor shall conduct, directly or through grant or contract, such programs as the Secretary determines appropriate to provide job training, counseling, and placement services (including job readiness and literacy and skills training) to expedite the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force”.
Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, to the attention of Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N1301, Washington, DC 20210. Comments may also be emailed to
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted
Please do not send your completed application to the OMB. Send it to the sponsoring agency as specified in this solicitation.
(Located on the VETS homepage at:
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed changes and request for comments; extension of comment period.
The Legal Services Corporation Office of Inspector General (“LSC OIG”) issued a notice requesting comments on proposed changes to the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients in the
Comments must be submitted by January 15, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony M. Ramirez,
LSC OIG is extending the public comment period stated in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by January 25, 2016. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
1.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by January 25, 2016. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
1.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-8033, “Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures As Low as is Reasonably Achievable.” This DG is proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.10 and describes methods and procedures that the staff of NRC considers acceptable for maintaining radiation exposures to employees and the public as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). This revision incorporates additional guidance from operating ALARA experience since the previous revision to RG 8.10 in 1975.
Submit comments by February 22, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Casper Sun, telephone: 301-415-1646, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0286 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0286 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.
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 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 NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled, “Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures As Low as is Reasonably Achievable,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-8033. Draft guide-8033 is proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.10, dated September 1975.
The NRC issued RG 8.10 in 1975 to provide guidance on an acceptable program for maintaining radiation exposures to employees and the public as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). In 1991, the NRC promulgated amendments to Title 10 of the
This draft guide, if finalized, would provide updated guidance on the methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the NRC's regulations associated with ALARA. The draft guide would apply to current and future applicants for and holders of:
• (1) Licenses issued under 10 CFR part 70 to possess or use, at any site or contiguous sites subject to licensee control, a formula quantity of strategic special nuclear material, as defined in 10 CFR 70.4; (2) operating licenses for nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50; and (3) approvals issued under subpart B, C, E, and F of 10 CFR part 52 (“protected applicants and licensees”).
• operating licenses for nuclear non-power reactors under 10 CFR part 50.
• general domestic licenses for byproduct material under 10 CFR part 31.
• specific domestic license to manufacture or transfer certain items containing byproduct material under 10 CFR part 32.
• specific domestic licenses of broad scope for byproduct material under 10 CFR part 33.
• licenses for industrial radiography under 10 CFR part 34.
• licenses for medical use of byproduct material under 10 CFR part 35.
• licenses for irradiators under 10 CFR part 36.
• licenses for well logging under 10 CFR part 39.
• licenses for source material under 10 CFR part 40.
• licenses for packaging and transportation of radioactive material under 10 CFR part 71.
• licenses for independent storage under 10 CFR part 72.
Holders of approvals under 10 CFR parts 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 71 of the NRC's regulations and holders of nonpower reactor operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50 are not protected by backfitting or issue finality provisions.
Issuance of this DG in final form would not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR parts 50, 70, or 72 and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this DG, the NRC has no current intention to impose the DG, if finalized, on current holders of 10 CFR part 50 operating licenses, 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, C, E, or F approvals, 10 CFR part 70 licenses, or 10 CFR part 72 licenses.
The DG, if finalized, could be applied to applications for 10 CFR part 50 operating licenses; 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, C, E, or F approvals; licenses issued under 10 CFR part 70; or licenses issued under 10 CFR part 72. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, or 72.62 or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, or 72.62 or the relevant issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
Backfitting restrictions were not intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes settled expectations, and applicants have no reasonable expectation that future requirements may change,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1324, “Guidance on Making Changes to Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors.” This guidance is proposed Revison 1 of RG 1.219, which incorporates additional information on making changes to emergency plans by facilities that have permanently ceased operations.
Submit comments by February 22, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN 12H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Stephen F. LaVie, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, telephone: 301-287-3741, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0278 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0278 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 NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled, “Guidance on Making Changes to Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1324. DG-1324 is proposed revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.219. The guide describes methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable to implement the requirements in Title 10, Section 50.54(q), of the
This guide is being updated to provide clarification on how the guidance applies to emergency plan changes at facilities that have certified permanent cessation of operation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82, “Termination of License,” or 10 CFR 52.110, “Termination of License,” as applicable.
In 2013, three nuclear power reactor licensees permanently ceased operations at their facilities. Some of these licensees changed their emergency plans assuming that the inherently lower risk of a radiological accident due to the cessation of operations and 10 CFR 50.59 change processes were sufficient to address changes to the emergency plan. However, 10 CFR 50.54(q) requires licensees to gain prior NRC approval of emergency plan changes that would no longer comply with one or more regulations or that would constitute a reduction in the plan effectivness. The licensee would need to request prior NRC approval through a license amendment request under 10 CFR 50.90, “Application for Amendment of License, Construction Permit, or Early Site Permit,” or request an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific Exemptions.”
This revision is being proposed to provide clarification on how the regulatory guidance applies to emergency plan changes at nuclear power plant facilities which have permanently shut down. Additionally, editorial changes have been made to reflect current format of the regulatory guide document series.
Issuance of this regulatory guide in final form would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” discussion in this regulatory guide, the NRC has no current intention to impose this regulatory guide on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses. Moreover, explanations of the
This regulatory guide may be applied to applications for operating licenses and combined licenses docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide, as well as future applications for operating licenses and combined licenses submitted after the issuance of this regulatory guide. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 50.109(a)(1) or otherwise be inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in a response to an October 7, 2015, letter from Bell Bend, LLC, which requested an exemption from Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) updates included in their combined license (COL) application. The NRC staff reviewed this request and determined that it is appropriate to grant the exemption, but stipulated that the updates to the FSAR must be submitted prior to, or coincident with, the resumption of the COL application safety review or by December 31, 2016, whichever comes first.
The exemption is effective on December 31, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0603 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:
•
•
•
Patricia Vokoun, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3470; email:
On October 10, 2008, Bell Bend, LLC (formerly known as PPL) submitted to the NRC a COL application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) (ADAMS Accession No. ML082890663) in accordance with the requirements of subpart C of part 52 of title 10 of the
The regulations at 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a COL under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's FSAR, which is part 2 of the COL application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update of the FSAR included in the BBNPP COL application would be due by December 31, 2015.
On January 9, 2014, Bell Bend, LLC (formerly known as PPL) submitted a request to place the safety review of the BBNPP COL application on hold until further notice (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A074). As a result of the safety review being placed on hold, no informational updates to the FSAR have occurred during this time. On October 7, 2015, Bell Bend, LLC requested an exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the BBNPP COL application FSAR update in calendar year 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15300A070).
The Bell Bend, LLC's requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Bell Bend, LLC to submit the next FSAR update at a later date but no later than December 31, 2016. The current requirement to submit an FSAR update could not be changed, absent the exemption.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule
The purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to ensure that the NRC has the most up-to-date information regarding the COL application, in order to perform an efficient and effective review. The rule targeted those applications that are being actively reviewed by the NRC. As requested by Bell Bend, LLC (formerly known as PPL) in the above referenced letter dated January 9, 2014, the NRC placed the safety review portion of the BBNPP COL application on hold until further notice. Therefore, updating the BBNPP FSAR would only cause undue hardship on Bell Bend, LLC, and the purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would still be achieved so long as the next update is submitted by December 31, 2016.
The requested exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the FSAR included in the BBNPP COL application would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii).
The exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow PPL to submit the next BBNPP COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2016. Per 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC staff has determined that granting Bell Bend, LLC the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; therefore, neither the probability, nor the consequences, of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow Bell Bend, LLC to submit the next FSAR update on or before December 31, 2016. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); or (2) the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the BBNPP COL application, when resumed, as well as issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. For this reason, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of that rule. Therefore, special circumstances exist under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). In addition, special circumstances are also present under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) because granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief. For the above reasons, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.
With respect to the exemption's impact on the quality of the human environment, the NRC has determined that this specific exemption request is eligible for categorical exclusion as identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of 10 CFR Chapter 1 (which includes 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii)) is an action that is a categorical exclusion, provided that:
(i) There is no significant hazards consideration;
(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite;
(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure;
(iv) There is no significant construction impact;
(v) There is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and
(vi) The requirements from which an exemption is sought involve:
(A) Recordkeeping requirements;
(B) Reporting requirements;
(C) Inspection or surveillance requirements;
(D) Equipment servicing or maintenance scheduling requirements;
(E) Education, training, experience, qualification, requalification or other employment suitability requirements;
(F) Safeguard plans, and materials control and accounting inventory scheduling requirements;
(G) Scheduling requirements;
(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements; or
(I) Other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.
The requirements from which this exemption is sought involve only “(B) Reporting requirements” or “(G) Scheduling requirements” of those required by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).
The NRC staff's determination that each of the applicable criteria for this categorical exclusion is met as follows:
I. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i): There is no significant hazards consideration.
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
II. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii): There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.
III. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iii): There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure.
IV. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv): There is no significant construction impact.
V. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v): There is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.
VI. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi): The requirements from which this exemption is sought involve only “(B) Reporting requirements” or “(G) Scheduling requirements.”
The NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances exist under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application, when resumed, as well as issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Bell Bend, LLC a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the BBNPP COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update on or before December 31, 2016.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22, the Commission has determined that the exemption request meets the applicable categorical exclusion criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), and the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG/CR; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft NUREG/CR, NUREG/CR-7206, “Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the MacArthur Maze Fire Scenario.” This report presents analyses that were performed to examine the hypothetical effects on a spent fuel transportation package from conditions during the MacArthur Maze accident in 2007. The analyses undertaken include FDS fire modeling, physical examination of material samples, ANSYS and COBRA-SFS code thermal modeling of a GA-4 package, ANSYS and LS-DYNA structural and thermal-structural modeling of the roadway and package, and fuel performance modeling using the FRAPTRAN-1.4, FRAPCON-3.4, and DATING codes. The estimated release from the hypothetical scenario is below the prescribed limit for safety.
Submit comments by February 22, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
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
Joseph Borowsky, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7407; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0207 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-2015-0207 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 NRC is issuing draft NUREG/CR “Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the MacArthur Maze Fire Scenario.” This report presents analyses that were performed to examine the hypothetical effects on a spent fuel transportation package from conditions during the MacArthur Maze accident in 2007. The analyses undertaken include FDS fire modeling, physical examination of material samples, ANSYS and COBRA-SFS code thermal modeling of a GA-4 package, ANSYS and LS-DYNA structural and thermal-structural modeling of the roadway and package, and fuel performance modeling using the FRAPTRAN-1.4, FRAPCON-3.4, and DATING codes. The estimated release from the hypothetical scenario is below the prescribed limit for safety.
The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an opportunity to review and provide comments on draft NUREG/CR-7206, “Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the MacArthur Maze Fire Scenario”. Any comments received will be considered in the final version or subsequent revisions of the draft NUREG/CR.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS) to reiterate the NRC staff's position in regard to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code-required inservice inspection requirements for moisture barriers. The NRC's regulations require, in part, that licensees implement the inservice inspection program for pressure retaining components and their integral attachments of metal containments and metallic liners of concrete containments in accordance with the ASME Code. If a material prevents moisture from contacting inaccessible areas of the containment shell or liner, especially if the material is being relied upon in lieu of augmented examinations of a susceptible location, the material must be inspected as a moisture barrier. The applicable ASME Code sections require licensees to inspect 100 percent of accessible moisture barriers during each inspection period.
Submit comments by January 25, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
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
Bryce Lehman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1626, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0285 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-2015-0285 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
• If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of regulatory matters. This may include communicating staff technical positions on matters that have not been communicated to or are not broadly understood by the nuclear industry. The NRC staff has developed draft RIS 20YY-XX, “Containment Shell or Liner Moisture Barrier Inspection,” to reiterate NRC expectations for these inspections. The NRC staff has identified several instances in which containment shell or liner moisture barrier materials were not properly inspected in accordance with ASME Code Section XI, Table IWE-2500-1, Item E1.30. Note 4 (Note 3 in editions before 2013) for Item E1.30 under the “Parts Examined” column states, “Examination shall include moisture barrier materials intended to prevent intrusion of moisture against inaccessible areas of the pressure retaining metal containment shell or liner at concrete to metal interfaces and at metal to metal interfaces which are not seal welded. Containment moisture barrier materials include caulking, flashing, and other sealants used for this application.” Examples of inadequate inspections have included licensees not identifying sealant materials at metal-to-metal interfaces as moisture barriers because they are not specifically depicted in Figure IWE-2500-1, and licensees not inspecting installed moisture barrier materials per Item E1.30 because the material was not included in the original design or was not identified as a “moisture barrier” in the design documents.
The NRC staff expects licensees to inspect 100 percent of accessible moisture barriers during each inspection period, in accordance with Table IWE-2500-1, Item E1.30, as required by § 50.55a of title 10 of the
The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft RIS. The NRC staff will make a final determination regarding issuance of the RIS after it considers any public comments received in response to this request.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG/CR; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft NUREG/CR, NUREG/CR-7207, “Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Newhall Pass Fire Scenario.” This report presents analyses that were performed to examine the hypothetical effects on a spent fuel transportation package from conditions during the Newhall Pass accident in 2007. The analyses undertaken include FDS fire modeling, physical examination of material samples, ANSYS and COBRA-SFS code thermal modeling of a GA-4 package, and fuel performance modeling using the FRAPTRAN-1.4, FRAPCON-3.4, and DATING codes. The estimated release from the hypothetical scenario is below the prescribed limit for safety.
Submit comments by February 22, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Joseph Borowsky, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7507; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0208 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-2015-0208 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 NRC is issuing draft NUREG/CR “Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Newhall Pass Fire Scenario.” This report presents analyses that were performed to examine the hypothetical effects on a spent fuel transportation package from conditions during the Newhall Pass accident in 2007. The analyses undertaken include FDS fire modeling, physical examination of material samples, and fuel performance modeling using the FRAPTRAN-1.4, FRAPCON-3.4, and DATING codes. The estimated release from the hypothetical scenario is below the prescribed limit for safety.
The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an opportunity to review and provide comments on draft NUREG/CR-7207, “Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Newhall Pass Fire Scenario”. Any comments received will be considered in the final version or subsequent revisions of the draft NUREG/CR.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Week of December 21, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
By a vote of 4-0 on December 22, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that both items in the above referenced Affirmation Session be held with less than one week notice to the public. The meeting is scheduled on December 23, 2015.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete sections (e) through (h) of Exchange Rule 1020, Registration and Functions of Options Specialists, as well as the associated “Guidelines for Exemptive Relief Under Rule 1020 for Approved Persons or Member Organizations Associated with a Specialist Member Organization” and Rule 1023, Specialist's Transactions with Listed Company.
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 is proposing to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material non-public information by specialists by deleting Sections (e) through (h) of Exchange Rule 1020, Registration and Functions of Options Specialists, as well as the associated “Guidelines for Exemptive Relief Under Rule 1020 for Approved Persons or Member Organizations Associated with a Specialist Member Organization,” and Rule 1023, Specialist's Transactions with Listed Company (collectively, the “Specialist Restrictions”). In doing so, the Exchange would harmonize its rules governing Phlx members
A “specialist” is an Exchange member who is registered as an options specialist pursuant to Exchange Rule 1020(a). Specialists are subject to quoting and registration obligations set forth in Rules 1014(b), 1020 and 1080.02. Quoting obligations of other market makers known as Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”) are also set forth in Rule 1014.
Importantly, all ROTs and specialists have access to the same information in the Exchange's order book. Moreover, neither ROTs nor specialists have agency obligations on the Exchange's order book. As such, the distinctions between specialists and ROTs are their quoting requirements set forth in Rule 1014.
Notwithstanding that specialists have access to the same Exchange trading information as all other market participants on the Exchange, the Exchange has specific rules governing how specialists may operate. Currently, Phlx Rule 1023 restricts specialists and various affiliates from effecting certain transactions with a company in options of which the specialist is registered.
The Exchange believes that the Specialist Restrictions, including the Guidelines and the Exchange approval requirement, are no longer necessary and proposes to delete them. The Exchange believes that Rule 761, Supervisory Procedures Relating to ITSFEA and to Prevention of the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information, Commentary .02 governing the misuse of material, non-public information, provides for an appropriate, principles-based approach to prevent the market abuses the Specialist Restrictions are designed to address. Specifically, Rule 761, Commentary .02 requires every member or member organization to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of the member's business, to prevent the misuse of material non-public information by such member or persons associated with such member in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder and the Exchange's own rules. For purposes of Rule 761, Commentary .02, misuse of material non-public information means:
(a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, partnership, Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, trust issued receipts, currency trust shares or a trust or similar entities, or in any related securities or related options or other derivative securities, or in any related commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other related commodity derivatives, while in possession of material nonpublic information concerning that corporation, Portfolio Depository Receipt, Index Fund Share, trust issued receipts, currency trust shares, trust or similar entity;
(b) trading in an underlying security or related options or other derivative securities, or in any related commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other related commodity derivatives, while in possession of material nonpublic information concerning imminent transactions in the above; and
(c) disclosing to another person any material nonpublic information involving a corporation, partnership, Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, trust issued receipts, currency trust shares or a trust or similar entities whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying security or in any related commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other related commodity derivatives, for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material nonpublic information.
Because members and member organizations are already subject to the requirements of Rule 761, Commentary .02, the Exchange does not believe it necessary to separately require specific limitations on specialists. Deleting the Specialist Restrictions including the Guidelines and its requirements for specific procedures would provide specialists flexibility to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities market in a manner similar to how members and member organizations on the Exchange currently operate and consistent with Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02.
As noted above, specialists are distinguished under Exchange rules from ROTs in that specialists have heightened quoting obligations and differing participation entitlements. However, none of these heightened obligations or different entitlements provides different or greater access to non-public information than any other member or member organization on the Exchange. Accordingly, because specialists do not have any trading advantages at the Exchange due to their market role, the Exchange believes they should be subject to the same rules as other members and member organizations regarding the protection against the misuse of material non-public information, which in this case is existing Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02.
The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be material, non-public information that an affiliated brokerage business of a specialist could share with such specialist. In that regard, the proposed rule change will not permit affiliates of a specialist to have access to any non-public order or quote information of the specialist, including hidden or undisplayed size or price information of such orders or quotes. Affiliates of specialists would only have access to orders and quotes that are publicly available to all market participants. Members do not expect to receive any additional order or quote information as a result of this proposed rule change. The Exchange does not believe that there will be any material change to member information barriers as a result of the removal of the Exchange pre-approval requirement. The Exchange has rules prohibiting members from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on the member's access to or receipt of material, non-public information.
Further, the Exchange does not believe there will be any material change to specialist information barriers as a result of removal of the Exchange's pre-approval requirements. In fact, the Exchange anticipates that eliminating the pre-approval requirement should facilitate implementation of changes to specialist information barriers as necessary to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange also suggests that the pre-approval requirement is unnecessary because specialists do not have agency responsibilities to orders in the book, or time and place information advantages because of their market role.
The Exchange notes that its proposed principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public information for all its members and member organizations is consistent with recently filed and approved rule changes for NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”), and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) governing cash equity market makers on those respective exchanges.
The Exchange believes that a principles-based rule applicable to members of options markets would be equally effective in protecting against the misuse of material non-public information.
The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change, pursuant to Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02 a specialist would still be obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, including Section 15(g) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on principles-based Rule 761, Commentary .02 would ensure that a specialist would be required to protect against the misuse of any material non-public information. As noted above, Rule 761, Commentary .02 already requires that firms refrain from trading while in possession of material non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-based approach rather than prescribing how and when to wall off a specialist from the rest of the firm would provide specialists with flexibility when managing risk across a firm, including integrating options positions with other positions of the firm or, as applicable, by the respective independent trading unit.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on an approved rule of the Exchange to which members and member organizations are subject—Rule 761, Commentary .02—and harmonizes the rules governing members and member organizations. Moreover, specialists would continue to be subject to federal and Exchange requirements for protecting material non-public order information.
The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still require that specialists maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though there would no longer be pre-approval of specialist information barriers, any specialist written policies and procedures would continue to be subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of prescribed restrictions should not reduce the effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material non-public information. Rather, members and member organizations will be able to utilize a flexible, principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while specified information barriers may no longer be required, a member or member organization's business model or business activities may dictate that an information barrier or functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of investors and the public interest that is currently applicable to specialists, while at the same time removing impediments to and perfecting a free and open market by moving to a principles-based approach to protect against the misuse of material non-public information.
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. As indicated above, the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by NYSE MKT that was recently approved by the Commission. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing specialists to comply with applicable Exchange rules in a manner best suited to their business models, business activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon specialists.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would eliminate a burden on competition for members and member organizations which currently exists as a result of disparate rule treatment between options and equities markets regarding how to protect against the misuse of material non-public information. For those members and member organizations that are also members of equity exchanges, their respective equity market maker operations are now subject to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public information. The Exchange believes it would remove a burden on competition to enable members and member organizations to similarly apply a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public information in the options space as ISE has recently done. To this end, the Exchange notes that Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02 still requires a specialist to evaluate its business to assure that its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material non-public information. However, with this proposed rule change, a member or member organization that trades equities and options could look at its firm more holistically to structure its operations in a manner that provides it with better tools to manage its risks across multiple security classes, while at the same time protecting against the misuse of material non-public information.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2015-85 and should be submitted on or before January 14, 2016.
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 its Options Pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled “BX Options Market—Fees and Rebates,” which governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (“BX Options”). The Exchange proposes to adopt new subsection (5) to add fees and rebates for BX Price Improvement Auction (“PRISM”), which is a mechanism for price improvement on BX Options (“Price Improvement Mechanism”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2 to adopt new subsection (5) to add fees and rebates for PRISM.
Effective on or about November 16, 2015, BX Options is introducing PRISM, which is codified in BX Chapter VI, Section 9 (also known as the “PRISM Rule”).
The Exchange believes that the PRISM Auction will be beneficial to market participants, and in particular will encourage BX Market Makers
This proposal establishes the fee and rebate structure for PRISM (per contract), in particular two new fees and one new rebate. These would apply to Customers,
Change 1. The Exchange proposes to establish fees for Submitted PRISM Order
Change 2. The Exchange proposes to establish fees for Responded to PRISM Auction
Change 3. The Exchange proposes to establish rebates for PRISM Order Traded With PRISM Response.
Each specific change is described in detail below.
For Submitted PRISM Order the Exchange is proposing to establish fees for Agency Order (per contract), and fees for Contra-Side Order (per contract). Currently, the Exchange has no such fees.
The fees for Submitted PRISM Order will range from $0.00 to $0.30 for Agency Order. The fees for Submitted PRISM Order will range from $0.00 to $0.05 for Contra-Side Order. Specifically, for Submitted PRISM Order proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (5) will state that for Customer there will be no fee ($0.00) for Agency Order and no fee ($0.00) for Contra-Side Order. Subsection (5) will state that for BX Options Market Maker there will be a $0.30 fee for Agency Order and a $0.05 fee for Contra-Side Order. Subsection (5) will state that for Non-Customer there will be a $0.30 fee for Agency Order and a $0.05 fee for Contra-Side Order.
For Responded to PRISM Auction the Exchange is proposing to establish fees for Penny Classes (per contract), and fees for non-Penny Classes (per contract). Currently, the Exchange has no such fees.
The fees for Responded to PRISM Auction will be $0.49 (per executed contract) for Penny Classes. The fees for Responded to PRISM Auction will be $0.94 (per executed contract) for non-Penny Classes. Specifically, for Responded to PRISM Auction proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (5) will state that for Customer there will be a $0.49 fee for Penny Classes and a $0.94 fee for non-Penny Classes. Subsection (5) will state that for BX Options Market Maker there will be a $0.49 fee for Penny Classes and a $0.94 fee for non-Penny Classes. Subsection (5) will state that for Non-Customer there will be a $0.49 fee for Penny Classes and a $0.94 fee for non-Penny Classes.
For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response the Exchange is proposing to establish rebates for Penny Classes (per contract), and rebates for non-Penny Classes (per contract). Currently, the Exchange has no such rebates. These rebates would be applied in conjunction with the Agency Order fees that the Submitted PRISM Order is assessed.
The rebates for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response will range from $0.00 to $0.35 for Penny Classes. The rebates for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response will range from $0.00 to $0.70 for non-Penny Classes. Only Customers will get rebates. Specifically, for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (5) will state that for Customer there will be a $0.35 rebate for Penny Classes and a $0.70 rebate for non-Penny Classes. Subsection (5) will state that for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer there will be no rebate ($0.00) for Penny Classes and no rebate ($0.00) for non-Penny Classes.
BX will apply the rebate to market participants that submitted a PRISM Order pursuant to a PRISM Auction and the PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response. Moreover, the Agency Order fee for Submitted PRISM Order, which is discussed in Change 1 above, will be applicable to any contract(s) for which a rebate is provided (whether $0.00 or otherwise in the fees and rebates schedule)
A Customer PRISM Agency Order in a Penny Class (one contract) trades against a PRISM Response in a Penny Class (one contract). The Customer Agency Order is assessed a fee of $0.00 and given a rebate of $0.35 for a total
A Non-Customer PRISM Agency Order in a Penny Class (one contract) trades against a PRISM Response in a Penny Class (one contract). The Non-Customer Agency Order is assessed a fee of $0.30 and given a rebate of $0.00 for a total fee of $0.30 (fee $0.30 + rebate $0.00). The market participant that Responded to PRISM Auction will be assessed a fee of $0.49.
As proposed, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (5) will read as follows:
(5) Fees and rebates for BX Price Improvement Auction (“PRISM”)
The Exchange is adopting these fees and rebates at this time because it believes that they will allow the Exchange to recoup some of the costs associated with PRISM, which promotes price improvement to the benefit of market participants, while also incentivizing the use of PRISM.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should generally determine the price of non-core market data because national market system regulation “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . .”
The Exchange's proposal establishes fees and rebates regarding PRISM, which promotes price improvement to the benefit of market participants. The Exchange believes that PRISM will encourage market participants, and in particular BX Market Makers, to compete vigorously to provide the opportunity for price improvement in a competitive auction process. The Exchange believes that its proposal will allow the Exchange to recoup costs associated with PRISM while also incentivizing its use.
For Submitted PRISM Order, establishing that there will be no fee for Customer for Agency Order, while establishing a $0.30 fee per contract for BX Options Market Maker for Agency Order and a $0.30 fee per contract for Non-Customer for Agency Order, is reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer behavior. The fee is also reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services. For Submitted PRISM Order, establishing no Customer fee, while establishing a $0.05 fee per contract for BX Options Market Maker for Contra-Side Order and a $0.05 fee per contract fee for Non-Customer for Contra-Side Order, is reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer behavior. The fee is also reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services.
Assessing Customers a lesser fee for Agency Order and for Contra-Side Order (in both cases $0.00) is reasonable because of the desirability of Customer activity. The proposed new fees and rebates for PRISM schedule is set up to encourage greater Customer trade volume to the Exchange. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all market participants by providing more trading
The proposed fee and rebate schedule is reasonably designed because it is within the range of fees and rebates assessed by other exchanges employing similar fee structures for price improvement mechanisms.
The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect differentiation among different market participants typically found in options fee and rebate schedules.
For Submitted PRISM Order, establishing no fee for Customer (Agency Order and Contra-Side Order) and a fee for BX Market Maker and Non-Customer (Agency Order and Contra-Side Order) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to assess such fee will apply the same to all similarly situated participants. Moreover, all similarly situated Submitted PRISM Orders are subject to the same proposed fee schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, fees for Submitted Prism Order are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while each market participant (Customer, BX Options Market Maker, non-Customer) is assessed a fee the Customer fee is lowest because an increase in Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
For Responded to PRISM Auction, establishing that there will be a $0.49 fee per contract for Customer for Agency Order, and the same fee for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer for Agency Order, is reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services. The practice of incentivizing increased Customer order flow through a fee and rebate schedule in order to attract professional liquidity providers (market-makers) is, and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets.
The proposed fee and rebate schedule is reasonably designed because it is within the range of fees and rebates assessed by other exchanges employing similar fee structures for price improvement mechanisms.
For Responded to PRISM Auction, establishing that there will be a $0.94 fee per contract for Customer for Contra-Side Order, and the same fee for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer for Contra-Side Order, is reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services. The practice of incentivizing increased Customer order flow through a fee and rebate schedule in order to attract professional liquidity providers (market-makers) is, and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets.
The proposed fee and rebate schedule is reasonably designed because it is within the range of fees and rebates assessed by other exchanges employing similar fee structures for price improvement mechanisms.
For Responded to PRISM Auction, establishing a fee for Customer, BX Market Maker and Non-Customer (Agency Order and Contra-Side Order) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to assess such fee will apply the same to all similarly situated participants. Moreover, all similarly situated Submitted PRISM Orders are subject to the same proposed fee schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response, establishing that there will be no rebate for BX Options Market Maker and Non-Customer for Penny Classes, while establishing a $0.35 rebate per contract for Customer for Penny Classes and a $0.70 rebate per contract for Customer for non-Penny Pilot Classes, is reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer behavior. The rebate is also reasonable because paying the rebate only to Customers will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services. The rebate is also reasonable because paying the rebate only to Customers will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services.
Offering a rebate only for Customer ($0.35 or $0.70) is reasonable because of the significance of Customer activity. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The practice of incentivizing increased Customer order flow through a fee and rebate schedule in order to attract professional liquidity providers (market-makers) is, and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets.
The proposed fee and rebate schedule is reasonably designed because it is within the range of fees and rebates assessed by other exchanges employing similar fee structures for price improvement mechanisms.
For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response, establishing a rebate for Customer (Penny Classes and non-Penny Classes) and no rebate for BX Market Maker and Non-Customer (Penny Classes and non-Penny Classes) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to pay such rebate will apply the same to all similarly situated participants. The Exchange is adopting the proposed fees and rebates at this time because it believes that the associated revenue will allow it to continue and enhance PRISM, which is beneficial to market participants. Moreover, all similarly situated PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response are subject to the same proposed rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, rebates for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Customer, can earn a rebate, Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect differentiation among different market participants typically found in options fee and rebate schedules.
In sum the Exchange believes that the proposed fee and rebate structure is designed to attract Customer liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities. This attracts BX Market Makers and an increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Moreover, the Exchange believes that assessing market participants other than Customers a higher effective rate for certain PRISM Order transactions is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because these types of market participants are more sophisticated and have higher levels of order flow activity and system usage. This level of trading activity draws on a greater amount of system resources than that of Customers, and thus, generates greater ongoing operational costs. The proposed fees and rebates will allow it to continue and enhance PRISM, which is beneficial to market participants.
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. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to establish fees and rebates for PRISM will impose any burden on competition, as discussed below.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and credits available to member firms in respect of PRISM do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and routing services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain PRISM, which has the potential to result in more efficient, price improved executions to the benefit of market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both inter-market and intra-market competition by incentivizing members to direct their orders, and particularly Customer orders, to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. To the extent that there is a differentiation between proposed fees assessed and rebates offered to Customers as opposed other market participants, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the fees and rebate should incentivize members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for participation in the PRISM Auction are not going to have an impact on intra-market competition based on the total cost for participants to transact as respondents to the Auction as compared to the cost for participants to engage in non-Auction electronic transactions on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for the PRISM Auction is comparable to that of other exchanges offering similar electronic price improvement mechanisms, and the Exchange believes that, based on experience with electronic price improvement crossing mechanisms on other markets, market participants understand that the price-improving benefits offered by the Auction justify and offset the transaction costs associated with Auction. To the extent that there is a difference between non-PRISM transactions and PRISM transactions, the Exchange does not believe this difference will cause participants to refrain from submitting or responding to PRISM. In addition, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed transaction fees and credits burden competition by creating a disparity of transaction fees between the PRISM Order and the transaction fees a responder pays would result in certain participants being unable to compete with the contra side order. The Exchange expects to see robust competition within the PRISM Auction. As discussed, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it establishes a fee structure in a manner that encourages market participants to direct their order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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 principal purpose of the proposed rule changes is to revise the ICE Clear Europe End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy (the “Price Discovery Policy”) to accommodate industry changes regarding the reduction of the frequency for which Single Name (“SN”) Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) contracts roll to the new on-the-run-contract.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe proposes revising its Price Discovery Policy to accommodate industry change regarding the reduction of the frequency for which SN CDS contracts roll to the new on-the-run-contract. The changes affect the labeling convention for cleared SN CDS contracts for price reporting purposes, but will not alter the terms of the contracts or the range of tenors of SN CDS contracts currently cleared by ICE Clear Europe.
ICE Clear Europe believes such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions cleared by ICE Clear Europe. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
As part of ICE Clear Europe's end-of-day price discovery process, ICE Clear Europe Clearing Members are required to submit end-of-day prices for specific instruments related to their open interest at ICE Clear Europe, in accordance with Rule 503(g) and the ICE Clear Europe Procedures. These end-of-day price submissions are used by ICE Clear Europe in its calculation of settlement prices.
ICE Clear Europe refers to a group of SN instruments with the same risk sub-factor and coupon as a “curve.” Each point, or tenor, along the curve is labeled with a tenor name. Currently for SN instruments, the market convention is to describe tenors based on the period remaining until the scheduled termination date of the contract. Under this convention, the nearest-to-expiring contract is referred to as the 0M tenor, the next nearest to expiring is referred to as the three month (3M) tenor, and so on (with scheduled termination dates spaced at 3 month intervals), up to ten years (10Y). ICE Clear Europe supports the clearing of all 41 SN tenors from 0M to 10Y. As such, ICE Clear Europe also calculates settlement prices for the 41 SN tenors on the curve. However, ICE Clear Europe defines a subset of the 41 tenors as “benchmark-tenors”, which are tenors for which Clearing Members provide submissions in the end-of-day price discovery process. The nine benchmark tenors are 0M, 6M, 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y, and 10Y, which correspond to so-called “on-the-run” contracts.
Currently, as a matter of CDS market practice, the on-the-run contract for a particular tenor is the contract expiring
The CDS industry has proposed reducing the frequency at which SN CDS contracts roll to the new on-the-run contract. Specifically, the CDS industry has proposed moving from quarterly roll dates to semi-annual roll dates for SN CDS contracts. Under the revised approach, market participants are expected to roll SN CDS contracts only on the March 20 and September 20 IMM dates, and the on-the-run contracts will be determined based on the next following June 20 and December 20 expiration dates. As a result, a particular contract tenor will generally remain the on-the-run contract for six months, rather than three.
ICE Clear Europe proposes changes to its Price Discovery Policy to accommodate the change in roll frequency for on-the-run contracts. Under the revised policy, ICE Clear Europe will re-label scheduled termination dates with benchmark tenor names every six months, on the March 20 and September 20 IMM dates for CDS contracts (
The new nine benchmark tenors will be the 0/3M, 6M, 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y and 10Y, which correspond to the on-the-run contracts for those tenors. Eight of the nine benchmark tenors remain constant and refer to individual scheduled termination dates that are fixed for the six-month periods between semi-annual re-labeling, specifically the 6M, 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y, and 10Y. However, the 0M tenor matures three months after a semi-annual labeling, and ICE Clear Europe defines the first (shortest-dated) benchmark tenor as the 0M tenor from a semi-annual re-labeling until the maturity of that tenor, and defines the first benchmark tenor as the 3M tenor from the maturity of the 0M tenor through the next semi-annual re-labeling. The label 0/3M tenor refers to this re-mapping of the first benchmark tenor to different IMM dates on a quarterly basis. Throughout the policy, references to the 0M SN tenor have been updated to 0/3M to reflect this change.
Consistent with the approach being taken throughout the CDS market, the changes to accommodate the change in SN roll frequency will take effect with the December 20, 2015 roll.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are designed to accommodate industry changes regarding the reduction of the frequency for which SN CDS contracts roll to the new on-the-run-contract, and will apply uniformly across all market participants. ICE Clear Europe is not changing the products or tenors of SN CDS offered, and does not believe that the amendments will adversely affect access to clearing or the cost of clearing for Clearing Members or other market participants. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
The foregoing rule changes have become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2015-020 and should be submitted on or before January 14,
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 delete obsolete rule language and amend outdated references relating to Exchange Rule 1047, Trading Rotations, Halts and Suspensions.
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to update the Exchange's rules by ensuring the rules accurately reflect how trading halts occur on the Exchange's fully electronic trading system, the Phlx XL II system (“System”).
First, the Exchange proposes to delete the existing text of paragraph (a) under Rule 1047 which governs opening and closing trading rotations. Paragraph (a) is obsolete because the Exchange no longer relies on manual trading rotations to open and close trading on the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt as new paragraph (a) a provision to reflect the fact that the System automatically halts trading in an option on the Exchange in certain situations. Specifically, an automated halt occurs following a halt or suspension of trading of the underlying security
Existing Rule 1047(e) refers to the “primary listing market,” which is not defined in Exchange rules, while the rest of Rule 1047 uses the term “primary market.” Rule 1000(b)(31) currently provides that the term “primary market” in respect of an underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share means the principal market in which the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share is traded. The Exchange believes that this is not clear and proposes to change this definition such that the term “primary market” means, in the case of securities listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market, the market that is identified as the listing market pursuant to Section X(d) of the approved national market system plan governing the trading of Nasdaq-listed securities, and, in the case of securities listed on another national securities exchange, the market that is identified as the listing market pursuant to Section XI of the Consolidated Tape Association Plan. This is the same definition that is used in NOM and BX rules.
New paragraph (b) will address manual halts by Options Exchange Officials (rather than automatic halts by the System).
Paragraph (b) will also reflect the fact that an Options Exchange Official retains the authority to delay the opening, halt and reopen after a halt to open where the underlying security has not opened or current quotations are unavailable for any foreign currency, and to conduct a closing rotation on the business day of expiration, or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the trading day prior to expiration where the underlying security did not open or was halted, whenever such action is deemed necessary in the interests of maintaining a fair and orderly market in such class or series of options and to protect investors. This is currently in Rule 1047(c). The Exchange is labelling this paragraph with the title “Manual Authority” to retain the ability of Options Exchange Officials to perform these duties in the unlikely event that it becomes necessary.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new paragraph (c) to reflect more specifically what happens when an option is halted. It will provide that in the event the Exchange halts trading pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b), all trading in the affected option shall be halted. The Exchange shall disseminate through its trading facilities and over OPRA a symbol with respect to such option indicating that trading has been halted, and a record of the time and duration of the halt shall be made available to vendors.
The Exchange proposes to delete existing Rule 1047(d), which provides that in the event that trading is halted in the underlying security on the primary market for such security, the specialist may halt trading in the option overlying such security, subject to the approval of an Options Exchange Official within five minutes of the halt in trading in the option. Paragraph (d) is made redundant as a result of adopting paragraph (a) to address automated halts, and is obsolete because it refers to specialists. Specialists cannot halt an option. The type of control that specialists used to have over halts no longer exists; once the System became more automated,
The Exchange proposes to delete current paragraph (e) because the fact that trading in an option will be halted whenever trading in the underlying security has been paused is now covered by new paragraph (a)(i). In addition, the language in Rule 1047(e)(i) is now covered in new paragraph (g) in a more streamlined form. Rule 1047(e)(ii), which provides that the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book, accept orders, and process cancels, is now in new paragraph (f), as explained further below.
The Exchange also proposes to renumber current paragraph (f) as paragraph (d) to improve the flow of the rule and align the paragraph numbers with those of NOM and BX.
The Exchange is proposing to renumber current paragraph (g) as new paragraph (e) without any substantive change to track the comparable provisions on NOM and BX.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new paragraph (f) to provide that when a halt occurs, existing quotes will be cancelled; during a halt, the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book (but not existing quotes), accept orders and quotes, and process cancels.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new paragraph (g) to govern the resumption of trading after a halt. Specifically, trading in an option that has been the subject of a halt shall be resumed: (A) In the case of a manual halt, upon the determination by an Options Exchange Official that the conditions which led to the halt are no longer present or that the interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by a resumption of trading; or (B) in the case of an automatic trading halt, the conditions which led to the halt are no longer present, and, in either case, in no circumstances will trading be resumed before the Exchange has received notification that the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share has resumed trading on at least one exchange. If, however, trading has not been resumed on the primary market for the underlying security after ten minutes have passed since the underlying security was paused by the primary market, trading in such options contracts may be resumed by the Exchange if the underlying security has resumed trading on at least one exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
Furthermore, the Exchange is amending the rule to reflect that certain halts occur automatically while others are determined by specified Exchange staff, Options Exchange Officials. The Exchange believes it is more accurate to reflect that sometimes Exchange staff employ discretion in determining whether to halt (new paragraph (b)) and sometimes the System automatically
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to amend the definition of primary market is consistent with promoting just and equitable principles of trade. It is based on a more precise definition, tied to the market where the underlying security is listed, which is commonly understood to be the meaning of the term.
The Exchange believes that the proposed language regarding manual halts due to an occurrence of an act of God or other event outside the Exchange's control should promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing for a manual halt in serious, unanticipated circumstances. The Exchange also believes that the new language in paragraph (c) should promote just and equitable principles of trade by indicating when a halt has occurred and making clear that no trading is permitted during a halt. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the language in new paragraph (f) that the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book (but not existing quotes), accept orders and quotes and process cancels should promote just and equitable principles of trade by making it clear to market participants what occurs during a halt. Similarly, the proposed language in new paragraph (g) regarding the resumption of trading after a halt should promote just and equitable principles of trade by stating with specificity the conditions under which trading resumes.
Overall, the proposal is intended to help members understand how trading halts operate, which should also promote just and equitable principles of trade, consistent with 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. The proposal raises neither intra-market nor inter-market competition issues because it merely deletes obsolete provisions and adds specificity.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the ALLB routing strategy. In sum, ALLB is a routing option under which the order checks the System
The Exchange now proposes to adopt three new fee codes, AA, AX, and AZ and related fees for the ALLB routing strategy. These fee codes would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, would be charged for routing orders to BZX, EDGA, and EDGX.
•
•
•
BATS Trading will pass through the above rates to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through that exact rate to its Members. The proposed rates would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs among all Members utilizing the ALLB routing strategy.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table to indicate the amount of the fees and rebates as five decimal points, rather than four decimal points, by adding a zero to the end of each fee and rebate, to reflect the order pricing format on the Exchange's Web site.
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its Fee Schedule on January 4, 2016, but the proposed fee codes and their associated rates will not be available until January 8, 2016, the date upon which it announced to Members that it would implement the ALLB routing strategy.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the changes to the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of the Fee Schedule are reasonable because they are designed to provide greater transparency to Members with regard to how the Exchange assesses fees and calculates rebates. The Exchange notes that none of the proposed changes are designed to amend any fee, nor alter the manner in which it assesses fees or calculates rebates. These changes to the Fee Schedule are intended to make the Fee Schedule clearer and less confusing for investors and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through the rates that BATS Trading would be subject to for orders routing to BZX, EDGA, and EDGX using the ALLB routing strategy to Members would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route orders to those venues. In addition, the proposed pricing would not provide any advantage to Users when routing to BZX, EDGA, and EDGX as compared to other methods of routing or connectivity available to Users by the Exchange because the proposed rates are identical to what the Member would be subject to if it routed to those venues directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that the changes to the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of the Fee Schedule would not affect intermarket nor intramarket competition because none of these changes are designed to amend any fee or alter the manner in which the Exchange assesses fees or calculates rebates. These changes are intended to provide greater clarity to Members with regard to how the Exchange access fees and calculates rebates.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
This proposed rule change by OCC concerns the adoption of a Charter for a new committee of OCC's Board of Directors (“Board”), the Technology Committee (“TC”). Additionally, OCC is proposing to add a description of the TC to its By-Laws.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
This proposed rule change concerns the adoption of the TC Charter and the addition of a description of the TC into Article III, Section 9 of OCC's By-Laws. The Board formed the TC in order to enhance the Board's understanding and oversight of key technology, information security, and cyber-security risk issues at OCC. Consistent with OCC's other Board-level committee charters, the TC Charter sets forth: (i) The purpose, functions, and responsibilities of the TC and (ii) the composition and organization of the TC.
As set forth in the TC Charter, the TC would be responsible for: (i) Overseeing major information technology (“IT”) related strategies, projects, and technology architecture decisions; (ii) monitoring whether OCC's IT programs effectively support OCC's business objectives and strategies; (iii) monitoring OCC's IT risk management efforts as well as the security of OCC's information systems and physical security of information system assets; and (iv) conferring with OCC's senior IT management team and informing the Board on IT related matters.
Further, and with respect to the TC Charter's role in the oversight of OCC's IT strategy and projects, the TC Charter provides that the TC would be specifically tasked with: (i) Evaluating OCC's IT strategy, including the financial, tactical, and strategic benefits of IT projects and technology architecture initiatives; (ii) critically reviewing IT projects and technology architecture decisions, including review of the process related to approval of capital expenditures as they relate to IT projects; and (iii) making recommendations to the Board with respect to IT related projects and investments that require Board approval. In addition, the TC Charter requires that the TC: (i) Monitor the quality and effectiveness of OCC's IT and physical security, including periodically reviewing and appraising OCC's disaster recovery capabilities and crisis management plans; (ii) in coordination and cooperation with the Audit Committee of the Board, monitor the quality and effectiveness of OCC's IT systems and processes that relate to or affect OCC's internal controls and assess OCC's management of IT related compliance risks; (iii) report to the Board and the Audit Committee about IT risks and controls; and (iv) serve in an advisory role with respect to IT decisions at OCC. In connection with carrying out its responsibilities, the TC would also, in general, inform and make recommendations to the Board and other Board level committees with respect to IT related matters.
The TC Charter would provide that the TC be comprised of three or more directors, and meet at least four times per year.
OCC's governance arrangements, which include, but are not limited to, the proposed TC Charter promote the effectiveness of OCC's [sic] Board's oversight on OCC's business and operational processes. OCC believes that adoption of the TC Charter would enhance the effectiveness of the Board's oversight on OCC's business and operational processes, and specifically technology related processes such as disaster recovery and crisis management plans as well as IT systems that relate to internal controls and compliance risks, as described above, through a dedicated Board-level committee responsible for oversight of such processes. As a result of the proposed rule change, it is more likely that OCC's technology processes work as expected, including those processes tied to the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and therefore the proposed rule change promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies and would not impose a burden on competition.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 added a new section 15E, “Registration of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations,”
There are 10 credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs under section 15E of the Exchange Act, which have already established the policies and procedures required by Rule 17g-4. Based on staff experience, an NRSRO is estimated to spend an average of approximately 10 hours per year reviewing its policies and procedures regarding material nonpublic information and updating them (if necessary), resulting in an average industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 100 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents; 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.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Bravo Resource Partners, Ltd. (“BRPNF”) (CIK No. 1116137), a Yukon corporation located in Englewood, Colorado with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2011. On April 22, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to BRPNF requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but BRPNF did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common stock of BRPNF was quoted on OTC Link, had two market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of First Potash Corp. (“SALTF”) (CIK No. 1490078), a British Columbia corporation located in Tucson, Arizona with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 20-F for the period ended February 29, 2012. On April 28, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to SALTF requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but SALTF did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common shares of SALTF were quoted on OTC Link, had four market makers, and were eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of HIP Energy Corporation (“HIPCF”) (CIK No. 1123839), a British Columbia corporation located in West Vancouver, BC, Canada with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 20-F for the period ended November 30, 2011. On April 15, 2014, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to HIPCF requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but HIPCF did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common shares of HIPCF were quoted on OTC Link, had four market makers, and were eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Musgrove Minerals Corp. (“MGSGF”) (CIK No. 1396368), a British Columbia corporation located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 20-F for the period ended November 30, 2007. On April 28, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to MGSGF requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but MGSGF did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common shares of MGSGF were quoted on OTC Link, had four market makers, and were eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Starcore International Ventures Ltd. (a/k/a Starcore International Mines Ltd.) (“SHVLF”) (CIK No. 1301713), a British Columbia corporation located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada with a class of securities registered with
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 22, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 6, 2016.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 203, Qualification and Registration of Members and Associated Persons, MIAX Rule 1302, Registration of Representatives, and MIAX Rule 1304, Continuing Education for Registered Persons, to establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration categories, to establish the Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for Securities Traders replacing the Series 56 examination, and to establish S101 as the appropriate continuing education program for Securities Traders replacing the S501, from and after January 4, 2016.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration categories, to establish the Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for Securities Traders and retire the Series 56 examination for Proprietary Traders, and to establish S101 as the appropriate continuing education program for Securities Traders and retire the S501 continuing education program for Proprietary Traders, from and after January 4, 2016. The Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to provide for Web-based delivery of the continuing education regulatory element for registered persons. This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-FINRA-2015-017 and SR-FINRA-2015-015, which were recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 203, Qualification and Registration of Members and Associated Persons, to add the registration categories of Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal. The Exchange also proposes to amend MIAX Rule 1302, Registration of Representatives, to replace the Proprietary Traders qualification examination (Series 56) with the Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57) and to amend MIAX Rule 1304, Continuing Education for Registered Persons, to specify the S101 Regulatory Element Continuing Education Program as the Continuing Education (“CE”) requirement for Securities Traders replacing the S501. The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 1304 to provide for Web-based delivery of the CE Regulatory Element set forth in that rule and to amend MIAX Rule 203 to make other minor non-substantive revisions.
Under the Exchange's registration rules relating to securities trading activity, Members that are individuals and associated persons of Members must register with the Exchange in an appropriate category of registration.
In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, the Exchange proposes to establish a new Securities Trader registration category by adopting a new Rule 203(d) applicable to persons engaged solely in proprietary trading on the Exchange. Such persons would be required to register with the Exchange as Securities Traders and be qualified by passing the new Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57) being implemented by FINRA. Specifically, Rule 203(d)(1) would require Members that are individuals and associated persons of Members to register with the Exchange as a Securities Trader if, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities, or foreign currency options on the Exchange, such person is engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities (other than any person associated with a Member whose trading activities are conducted principally on behalf of an investment company that is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that controls, is controlled by or is under common control, with the Member). Subparagraph (d)(2) would require an applicant to become qualified as a Securities Trader under Rule 1302(e) as proposed to be amended before registering in the new Securities Trader category. Subparagraph (d)(3) would also provide that a person registered as a Securities Trader would not be qualified to function in any other registration category, unless he or she is also separately qualified and registered in such other registration category.
Rule 1302(e) as proposed to be amended would require that a person engaged solely in proprietary trading on the Exchange pass the new Series 57 qualification examination for Securities Traders being implemented by FINRA. Rule 1302(e) would also allow a person engaged in proprietary trading on the Exchange to be grandfathered as a Securities Trader without having to take the Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57), if such person has passed the General Securities Registered Representative Examination (Series 7) and maintains a Series 7 registration or has passed the Proprietary Traders qualification examination (Series 56) and maintains a Proprietary Trader registration as of January 4, 2016, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date that the person last registered as a Proprietary Trader and the date such person registers as a Securities Trader in the Web CRD. Following January 4, 2016, all new candidates for Securities Trader registration must pass the Series 57 examination. They will not be permitted to pass the Series 7 in order to register as Securities Traders. The Series 7 requirement will continue to apply to candidates for General Securities Representative registration, but will not qualify candidates to register as Securities Traders.
A person registered as a Proprietary Trader in Web CRD system on January 4, 2016 will be grandfathered as a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. In addition, individuals who were registered as a Proprietary Trader in the Web CRD system prior to January 4, 2016 will be eligible to register as Securities Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they were last registered as a Proprietary Trader and the date they register as a Securities Trader.
Persons registered in the new Securities Trader category would be subject to the continuing education requirements of Rule 1304. The S501 Proprietary Trader CE Program is currently specified as the CE Regulatory Element applicable for registrants registered as Proprietary Traders by passing the Series 56 qualification examination. The S101 Regulatory Element CE Program is the CE Regulatory Element that applies to persons with a Series 7 registration, including those registered as Proprietary Traders by passing the Series 7 qualification examination. MIAX Rule 1304(a) as proposed to be amended would specify the S101 Regulatory Element CE Program as the appropriate CE Regulatory Element applicable to Securities Traders. The rule would leave in place the Proprietary Trader CE Program through January 4, 2016, the phase out date for the registration category of Proprietary Trader. From and after January 4, 2016, the S101 would become the appropriate CE Regulatory Element applicable to individuals maintaining a Series 7 or a Series 57. The S101 CE Regulatory Element content is being updated by FINRA to provide for a more comprehensive, complete and customized CE approach covering key aspects of a particular registered person's registration.
In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, the Exchange further proposes to establish a new Securities Trader Principal registration category by adopting a new Rule 203(c) applicable to persons responsible for the supervision of persons engaged in proprietary trading on the Exchange. Persons responsible for the supervision of persons engaged in proprietary trading on the Exchange would be required to register with the Exchange as Securities Trader Principals. The proposed rule change should allow MIAX to more easily track principals with supervisory responsibility over specific securities trading activities. Securities Trader Principals would be required to qualify by first registering as a Securities Trader under Rule 1302(e), and passing the new Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57) being implemented by FINRA as well as passing the General Securities Principal qualification examination (Series 24). Specifically, Rule 203(c)(1) would require Members that are individuals and associated persons of Members within the definition of Options Principal in Rule 100 and who will have supervisory responsibility over the securities trading activities described in Rule 203(d) (
A person who is qualified and registered as a Securities Trader Principal under the proposed rule would only have supervisory responsibility over the securities trading activities specified in Rule 203(d), unless such person were separately qualified and registered in another appropriate principal registration
A person registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal in the Web CRD system on January 4, 2016 will be eligible to register as a Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations. An individual who was registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal in the Web CRD system prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will also be eligible to register as a Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they were last registered as an Options Principal and the date they register as a Securities Trader Principal. Members, however, will be required to affirmatively register persons transitioning to the proposed registration category as Securities Trader Principals on or after January 4, 2016.
In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, the Exchange further proposes to provide for Web-based delivery of the CE Regulatory for registered persons. As proposed to be amended, MIAX Rule 1304 would specify in a new subparagraph (a)(4) that the CE Regulatory Element set forth in the rule will be administered through Web-based delivery or such other technological manner and format as specified by the Exchange from and after January 4, 2016. Most registered persons currently complete the Regulatory Element in a test center and the remainder do so in-firm. Given the advances in Web-based technology, the Exchange believes that there is diminishing utility in the test center and in-firm CE delivery methods. The Exchange notes that the Web-based format will include safeguards to authenticate the identity of the CE candidate. Moreover, according to FINRA, registered persons have raised concerns with the current test center delivery method because of the travel involved, the limited time currently available to complete a Regulatory Element session and the use of rigorous security measures at test centers, which are appropriate for taking qualification examinations, but onerous for a CE program.
In addition to the changes set forth above, the Exchange proposes to make the following non-substantive clarifying changes to Rule 203: (i) Re-letter the paragraphs following new Rules 203(c) and (d), (ii) remove the word “Exam” in the parenthetical in subparagraph (e) for consistency with other references to examinations in MIAX's rulebook, (iii) add a colon at the end of the subparagraph (f), and (iv) correct the reference to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the “Act” to the defined term of “Exchange Act” in subparagraph (f)(1). These clarifying changes would make the rule more concise, clear and understandable, and eliminate the potential for confusion.
Within 30 days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular announcing the operative date of the rule change, which will not be sooner than January 4, 2016.
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange further believes its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(c) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Implementation of the proposed changes to MIAX registration rules in coordination with the FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for Members and enhance the ability of the Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate Members, which will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect intra-market competition because all similarly situated representatives and principals will be required to complete the same qualification examinations and maintain the same registrations. Finally, the proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the proposed new Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 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
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-71 and should be submitted on or before January 14, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the ALLB routing strategy. In sum, ALLB is a routing option under which the order checks the System
The Exchange now proposes to adopt three new fee codes, AA, AX, and AY and related fees for the ALLB routing strategy. These fee codes would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, would be charged for routing orders to BYX, EDGA, and EDGX.
•
•
•
BATS Trading will pass through the above rates to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through that exact rate to its Members. The proposed rates would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate its costs among all Members utilizing the ALLB routing strategy.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table to indicate the amount of the fees and rebates as five decimal points, rather than four decimal points, by adding a zero to the end of each fee and rebate, to reflect the order pricing format on the Exchange's Web site.
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its Fee Schedule on January 4, 2016, but the proposed fee codes and their associated rates will not be available until January 8, 2016, the date upon which it announced to Members that it would implement the ALLB routing strategy.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the changes to the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of the Fee Schedule are reasonable because they are designed to provide greater transparency to Members with regard to how the Exchange assesses fees and calculates rebates. The Exchange notes that none of the proposed changes are designed to amend any fee, nor alter the manner in which it assesses fees or calculates rebates. These changes to the Fee Schedule are intended to make the Fee Schedule clearer and less confusing for investors and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through the rates that BATS Trading
The Exchange believes that the changes to the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of the Fee Schedule would not affect intermarket nor intramarket competition because none of these changes are designed to amend any fee or alter the manner in which the Exchange assesses fees or calculates rebates. These changes are intended to provide greater clarity to Members with regard to how the Exchange access fees and calculates rebates.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.1(s) to provide for price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.1(s) to provide for price collar
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.1(s) to respond to market events on August 24, 2015, by adopting price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions. On August 24, 2015, the market experienced extreme trading volatility, which resulted in a significantly higher number of trading pauses under the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Plan”) than the average trading day. Because of the volume of trading interest that the Exchange received during these trading pauses, the Exchange reopened trading following those pauses with Trading Halt Auctions. On that day, the Exchange applied price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions that were 5% for securities with a consolidated last sale price of $25.00 or less, 2% for securities with a consolidated last sale price greater than $25.00 but less than or equal to $50.00, and 1% for securities with a consolidated last sale price greater than $50.00.
The Exchange believes that these parameters were too narrow. The Exchange also believes, however, that it is appropriate to have protections in place for Trading Halt Auctions to assure that a reopening trade will not deviate significantly from prior prices, even taking into consideration natural price movements for a security. The Exchange will therefore be conducting an analysis to identify what changes, if any, would be appropriate to balance allowances for natural price movement in a Trading Halt Auction, while at the same time avoiding significant price deviations that would not be in line with the fair value of securities listed on the Exchange, which are all Exchange Traded Products (“ETP”). Following this analysis, the Exchange will propose to make the price collar thresholds proposed herein permanent or propose other or additional changes to the re-opening auction process.
Pending such analysis, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.1(s) on an interim basis to add to the rule price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions that would be based on the thresholds for determining whether an execution is clearly erroneous. The Exchange proposes that this proposed rule change will sunset six months after the operative date of this rule change.
For such interim measure, the Exchange proposes new Rule 1.1(s)(B) to specify that when the Trading Halt Auction Price is established by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35(f)(4)(A), the Limit Orders eligible for determining the Indicative Match Price would be limited by specified price collar thresholds. As further proposed, the specified percentage for the price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions would be 10% for securities with a consolidated last sale price of $25.00 or less, 5% for securities with a consolidated last sale price greater than $25.00 but less than or equal to $50.00, and 3% for securities with a consolidated last sale price greater than $50.00. These proposed percentages are based on the corresponding “numerical guideline” percentages set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) for the Core Trading Session.
The Exchange believes that by adopting price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions based on the clearly erroneous execution guidelines, the Exchange would be widening the thresholds from their current percentages, thereby ending the use of the current overly-narrow price collar thresholds. The Exchange further believes that using temporary price collar thresholds tied to the clearly erroneous execution guidelines is appropriate because an auction trade is subject to these guidelines for purposes of determining whether such execution is clearly erroneous. In addition, the Exchange's proposed rule change is similar to how BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”) prices its Halt Auctions for ETPs. Like BATS, the Exchange is the primary listing market only for ETPs and would, therefore only have Trading Halt Auctions for ETPs. BATS Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C) provides that BATS executes orders in ETPs in a Halt auction at a price level within a “Collar Price Range” that maximizes the number of shares executed in the auction. Similar to the Exchange's proposal, BATS uses Collar Price Ranges that are based on the numerical guidelines set forth in the market-wide clearly erroneous execution rules.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to add Rule 1.1(s)(B) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly market because it would provide for price collar thresholds that are wider than the current thresholds used by the Exchange, but yet are based on an existing standard for assessing whether an auction trade is clearly erroneous. In particular, the proposed rule change responds to market events of August 24, 2015 by aligning the price collar thresholds applicable to Trading Halt Auctions with the clearly erroneous execution guidelines. The Exchange
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 change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather to provide for a price protection mechanism to prevent Trading Halt Auctions from occurring at prices that could be a clearly erroneous execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-121. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Pricing at Chapter XV Section 2, entitled “BX Options Market—Fees and Rebates,” which governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (“BX Options”). The Exchange proposes to modify certain fees and rebates (per executed contract) and to adopt tiers applicable to fees and rebates (each a “Tier” and together the “Tiers”).
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
The Exchange proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2 to modify subsection (1) regarding certain fees and rebates
Currently, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (1) reads as follows:
The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution and routing services of the BX Options market for all securities.
The Exchange proposes modifications to its fees and rebates for Penny Pilot Options and for Non-Penny Pilot Options as follows:
Change 1. For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange proposes to modify fees and rebates to add Tiers for: (1) Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity; (2) Customer Fees to Add Liquidity; (3) Customer Rebates to Remove Liquidity; and (4) BX Options Market Maker Fees to Remove Liquidity.
Change 2. For Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange proposes to modify fees and rebates to add Tiers for: (1) Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity; (2) Customer Fees to Add Liquidity; (3) Customer Rebates to Remove Liquidity; (4) BX Options Marker Maker Fees to Remove Liquidity. The Exchange also proposes to increase the Fee to Add Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer.
Each specific change is described in detail below.
For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify fees and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker.
Proposed Tier 1 (“Penny Pilot Tier 1”) will be where a BX Participant (“Participant”) executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity and exchange traded fund (“ETF”) option average daily volume (“ADV”) contracts per month. Proposed Penny Pilot Tier 1 will range from $0.00 rebate to $0.46 fee:
Proposed Tier 2 (“Penny Pilot Tier 2”) will be where Participant executes 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Penny Pilot Tier 2 will range from $0.10 rebate to $0.46 fee:
Proposed Tier 3 (“Penny Pilot Tier 3”) will be where Participant executes 0.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Penny Pilot Tier 3 will range from $0.20 rebate to $0.46 fee:
For Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify fees and rebates for Customer, BX Options Market Maker, and Non-Customer. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer,
Proposed Tier 1 (“Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1”) will be where Participant executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1 will range from $0.00 rebate to $0.89 fee:
Proposed Tier 2 (“Non-Penny Pilot Tier 2”) will be where Participant executes 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 2 will range from $0.10 rebate to $0.89 fee:
Proposed Tier 3 (“Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3”) will be where Participant executes 0.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3 will range from $0.20 rebate to $0.89 fee:
As proposed, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (1) will read as follows:
The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution and routing services of the BX Options market for all securities.
The Exchange is adopting these fees and rebates at this time because it believes that they will provide incentives for execution of contracts on the BX Options Market. The Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should generally determine the price of non-core market data because national market system regulation “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify fees and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer, and Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer. The Exchange is also proposing to add Tiers for Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Market Maker. The three new Tiers make up the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule.
In particular, proposed Penny Pilot Tier 1 will be where a Participant executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and will range from $0.00 rebate to $0.46 fee.
In adding the new Tiers in the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule, the current pricing will be replaced with the proposed Tier Schedule and is no longer used. Tiers replace the current rebate ($0.00) in Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer (no rebate is offered today), and reference to note 2 is removed.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Tiers in the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule are reasonable in that they reflect a structure that is not novel in the options markets but rather is similar to that of other options markets and competitive with what is offered by other exchanges.
Establishing Penny Pilot Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer, and Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer, and Penny Pilot Tiers for Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker is reasonable. It encourages market participant behavior through progressive tiered fees and rebates using an accepted methodology among options exchanges.
The Penny Pilot Tiers are reasonable in that they are set up to incentivize Participants to direct liquidity to the Exchange. That is, as Participants execute more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month on the Exchange, they can in certain categories earn higher rebates and be assessed lower fees. For example, the Penny Pilot Tier 3 Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker is higher ($0.20) that [sic] the Penny Pilot Tier 1 Rebate to Add Liquidity ($0.00), which offer [sic] no rebate today. The Penny Pilot Tiers are set up in a similar progressive manner for Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer. And, the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Option Market Maker trading with Customer is lesser for Tier 3 ($0.30) than for Tier 1 ($0.39).
For Penny Pilot Options, establishing the Customer-related and BX Options Market Maker-related fee and rebate changes, which includes the new Tiers, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to assess fees and pay rebates according to Penny Pilot Tiers 1, 2, and 3 will apply uniformly to all similarly situated Participants. BX Options Market Makers would be assessed a Fee to Remove Liquidity according to the Penny Pilot Tiers, and Customers would earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity and a Rebate to Remove Liquidity according to the same Tiers per the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule .
The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect differentiation among different market participants. The Exchange believes that the differentiation is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as well as reasonable, and notes that unlike others (
The Exchange believes that by making the proposed Penny Pilot Options changes, it is incentivizing Participants to execute more volume on the Exchange to further enhance liquidity in this market.
For Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify fees and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer,
In particular, proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1 will be where Participant executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and will range from $0.00 rebate to $0.89 fee.
In adding the new Tiers in the Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule, the current pricing will be replaced with the proposed Tier Schedule and is no longer used. Tiers replace the current fee ($0.25/$0.85) to Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer
The Exchange believes that the proposed Tiers in the Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule are reasonable in that they reflect a structure that is not novel in the options markets but rather is similar to and competitive with what is offered by other exchanges.
Establishing Non-Penny Pilot Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer, and Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer, and Non-Penny Pilot Tiers for Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker is reasonable. It encourages market participant behavior through progressive tiered fees and rebates using an accepted methodology among options exchanges.
The Non-Penny Pilot Tiers are reasonable in that they are set up to incentivize Participants to direct liquidity to the Exchange. That is, as Participants execute more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month on the Exchange, they can in certain categories earn higher rebates and be assessed lower fees. For example, the Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3 Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker is, similarly to the equivalent Penny Pilot Tier category, higher ($0.20) that [sic] the Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1 Rebate to Add Liquidity ($0.00). The Non-Penny Pilot Tiers are set up in a similar progressive manner for Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Customer being assessed a lesser fee for Tier 3 ($0.60) than for Tier 1 ($0.89).
For Non-Penny Pilot Options, establishing the Customer-related and BX Options Market Maker-related fee and rebate changes, which includes the new Tiers, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to assess fees and pay rebates according to Non-Penny Pilot Tiers 1, 2, and 3 will apply similarly to all similarly situated Participants. BX Options Market Makers would be assessed a Fee to Remove Liquidity according to the Non-Penny Pilot Tiers, and Customers would earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity and a Rebate
The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect differentiation among different market participants. The Exchange believes that the differentiation is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as well as reasonable, and notes that unlike others (
The Exchange believes that by making the proposed Non-Penny Pilot Options changes, it is incentivizing Participants to execute more volume on the Exchange to further enhance liquidity in this market.
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. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to make changes to its Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options fees and rebates and to establish Tiers for such fees and rebates will impose any undue burden on competition, as discussed below.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is simply continuing its fees and rebates and establishing Tiers for Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in order to remain competitive in the current environment.
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that price differentiation among different market participants operating on the Exchange (
In this instance, the proposed changes to the fees and rebates for execution of contracts on the Exchange, and establishing Tiers for such fees and rebates, do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and routing services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain order executions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Bioject Medical Technologies, Inc. (“BJCT
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Black Castle Developments Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a ingXabo Corporation) (“BCDH”) (CIK No. 1072971), a Nevada corporation located in Fresno, California with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-12G on April 16, 2012. On February 19, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to BCDH requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but BCDH did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common stock of BCDH was quoted on OTC Link, had seven market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Catalyst Resource Group, Inc. (“CATA”) (CIK No. 106311), a Florida corporation located in Huntington Beach, California with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012. On February 19, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to CATA requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but CATA did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common stock of CATA was quoted on OTC Link, had seven market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of SSI International, Ltd. (“SSIT”) (CIK No. 1455982), a revoked Nevada corporation located in Reno, Nevada with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2011. On February 19, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to SSIT requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but SSIT did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common stock of SSIT was quoted on OTC Link, had three market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Strike Axe, Inc. (“SKAX”) (CIK No. 1438945), a void Delaware corporation located in Lombard, Illinois with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2012. On April 28, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to SKAX requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but SKAX did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common stock of SKAX was quoted on OTC Link, had four market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Viper Powersports, Inc. (“VPWI”) (CIK No. 1337213), a defaulted Nevada corporation located in Auburn, Alabama with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012. On April 22, 2015, Corporation Finance sent a delinquency letter to VPWI requesting compliance with its periodic filing requirements but VPWI did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of December 9, 2015, the common stock of VPWI was quoted on OTC Link, had eight market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 22, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 6, 2016.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations, SBA by this notice declares null and void the license to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 08/08-0150 issued to North Dakota SBIC, L.P.
United States Small Business Administration.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 2.38 percent for the January-March quarter of FY 2016.
Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.
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 25, 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
Prior to Small Business Administration (SBA) approval of subsequent loan disbursement, disaster loan borrowers are required to submit information to demonstrate that they used loan proceeds for authorized purposes only and to make certain certification regarding current financial condition and previously reported compensation paid in connection with the loan.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, including by Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 (August 28, 2000), and to the extent permitted by law, I hereby delegate to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Educational and Cultural Affairs, the functions in 22 U.S.C. 2459, providing for immunity from judicial seizure for cultural objects imported into the United States for temporary exhibition.
Notwithstanding this re-delegation, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges may at any time exercise the functions delegated herein.
Any reference in this Delegation of Authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, including by Delegation of Authority No 236-3 (August 28, 2000), and to the extent permitted by law, I hereby re-delegate to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the functions in section 102 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2452) relating to the provision by grant, contract or otherwise for a wide variety of educational and cultural exchanges.
Notwithstanding this re-delegation, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs may at any time exercise the function delegated herein.
Any reference in this Delegation of Authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time. Delegation of Authority 236-4 remains in effect until revoked.
This Delegation of Authority shall expire on January 5, 2016.
This Delegation shall be published in the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Notice of meeting.
The TVA Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, January 20 and Thursday, January 21, 2016, regarding regional energy related issues in the Tennessee Valley.
The RERC was established to advise TVA on its energy resource activities and the priorities among competing objectives and values. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The meeting agenda includes the following:
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Update of RERC First Term Key Advice
3. Public Comments
4. TVA's Integrated Resource Plan Direction, Indicators, and Evolving Market Place
5. Overview of Coal Combustion Residuals and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
6. Council Discussion and Advice
The RERC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session starting at 3:30 p.m. CST on Wednesday, January 20. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 3:15 p.m. CST on Wednesday, January 20 and will be called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Energy Resource Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-9D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 4: 30 p.m. and Thursday, January 21, 2016, from 12:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. CST.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Memphis Downtown Hotel, 250 North Main Street, Memphis, TN 38103, and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.
Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-9D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-6113.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of Lake Murray State Park Airport at Lake Murray State Park in Ardmore, Oklahoma.
Comments must be received on or before January 25, 2016.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Glenn A. Boles, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Manager—Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
Ms. Kathy Franklin, Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma
The request to release this airport may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release Lake Murray State Park Airport at Lake Murray State Park in Ardmore, Oklahoma, from all federal obligations for the purposes of closing this airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Oklahoma Department of Tourism and the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission (co-sponsors) requested the release of the airport which consists of 61.53 acres, paved runway (2,500 feet × 48 feet), connecting taxiway (160 feet × 35 feet) and apron (300 feet × 115 feet). The land was acquired by the State of Oklahoma for use as the Lake Murray State Park through an appropriation of state funds to the Planning and Resources Board in the 1930's. The airport was constructed in 1963 with an FAA Grant in the amount of $45,823.76. The airport has very low demand with only 50 operations for the 12 months ending Sept 20, 2013, has no based aircraft, and has been designated as `unclassified' by the FAA ASSET report. There are four other NPIAS airports within a 25 mile radius which better meet aviation needs of this area. Lake Murray State Park Airport's pavements are in fair condition; however, within the next five years, the runway will need to be reconstructed with an estimated cost to rehabilitate and improve to FAA standards of $1,083,000. The State has concluded this is not a prudent expenditure and that these limited funds would be better invested in other public use airports in Oklahoma. As the airport owners, the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission (OAC) have requested a full release of their airport obligations. If released, the airport property will return to being part of Lake Murray State Park, and the property will be allowed to become part of the natural grassland. The OAC plans to invest state funds equal to or in excess of the sum of the amount of the four AIP grants received ($183,999.00) and the appraised value for the land ($136,896) in NPIAS Airports in the Oklahoma Airport System during the federal fiscal year 2016.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 120 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2007-26653; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-26690; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 120 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 120 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following group(s) of drivers will receive renewed exemptions effective in the month of January and are discussed below.
As of January 3, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 41 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 54948; 65 FR 159; 66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 66 FR 66969; 68 FR 69432; 68 FR 69434; 70 FR 53412; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 70 FR 74102; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 644; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 36099; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 62897; 72 FR 71995; 73 FR 60398; 74 FR 8302; 74 FR 34394; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 65847; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 39727; 76 FR 12216; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR 55465; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 64169; 76 FR 64171; 76 FR 67246; 76 FR 70210; 76 FR 70212; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 75943; 76 FR 79760; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 47818; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 63307; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 65032; 78 FR 66099; 78 FR 67452; 78 FR 67460; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77780; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2007-26653; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-2011-26690; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169. Their exemptions are effective as of January 3, 2016 and will expire on January 3, 2018.
As of January 5, 2016 and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 70213; 77 FR 541; 78 FR 74223):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0298. Their exemptions are effective as of January 5, 2016 and will expire on January 5, 2018.
As of January 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR 67340; 73 FR 1395; 74 FR 65845; 76 FR 78728; 78 FR 76704):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0017. Their exemptions are effective as of January 8, 2016 and will expire on January 8, 2018.
As of January 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following individual, Juan R. Andrade (TX), has satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 64271; 79 FR 2748).
The driver was included in the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0167. The exemption is effective as of January 9, 2016 and will expire on January 9, 2018.
As of January 15, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 15 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 64271; 79 FR 2748):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0167. Their exemptions are effective as of January 15, 2016 and will expire on January 15, 2018.
As of January 24, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 64164; 76 FR 70213; 76 FR 73769; 77 FR 541; 77 FR 3547; 79 FR 2247):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0299. Their exemptions are effective as of January 24, 2016 and will expire on January 24, 2018.
As of January 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 10300; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 52811; 68 FR 61860; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 48798; 70 FR 48799; 70 FR 48800; 70 FR 48801; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 61165; 70 FR 71884; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 4632; 72 FR 52422; 72 FR 58359; 72 FR 62897; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 5259; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 64124; 74 FR 65845; 75 FR 1451; 77 FR 545; 78 FR 78475):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727. Their exemptions are effective as of January 27, 2016 and will expire on January 27, 2018.
As of January 28, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR 60022; 75 FR 4623; 77 FR 543; 78 FR 76707):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0303. Their exemptions are effective as of January 28, 2016 and will expire on January 28, 2018.
As of January 29, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 67454; 79 FR 4803):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0170. Their exemptions are effective as of January 29, 2016 and will expire on January 29, 2018.
Each of the 120 applicants listed in the groups above has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by January 25, 2016.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 120 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of program change.
The FMCSA announces, pursuant to 49 CFR 382.305, that it is reducing the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing for drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) requiring a commercial driver's license (CDL) from the current rate of 50 percent of the average number of driver positions to 25 percent of the average number of driver positions, effective in calendar year 2016. The FMCSA Administrator has the discretion to decrease the minimum annual random testing percentage rate based on the reported positive random test rate for the entire motor carrier industry. Based on the controlled substances random test data in FMCSA's Management Information System (MIS) for calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, the positive rate for controlled substances random testing fell below the 1.0 percent threshold for 3 consecutive calendar years. As a result, the Agency will lower the controlled substances minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing to 25 percent of the average number of driver positions. In accordance with 49 CFR 382.305(e)(2) if, in the future, the reported positive rate for any calendar year is equal to or greater than 1.0 percent, the FMCSA Administrator will increase the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing to 50 percent of all driver positions.
Effective January 1, 2016, the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing, for drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) requiring a commercial driver's license (CDL), will be 25 percent.
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Juan Moya, Drug and Alcohol Program Manager, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-4844 or
The final rule titled, “Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing,” published August 17, 2001, (66 FR 43097), established the process by which the Agency determines whether the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing should be increased or decreased. The final rule included a provision indicating that the decision on whether to increase or decrease the percentage rate would be based upon the motor carrier industry's overall positive random controlled substance test rate, as reported by motor carrier employers to FMCSA, pursuant to 49 CFR 382.403. Under this performance-based system, the testing rate was initially set at 50 percent. The FMCSA Administrator may, at his or her discretion, lower the minimum annual random controlled substances testing
In accordance with 49 CFR 382.403, each calendar year FMCSA requires motor carriers selected for the survey to submit their DOT drug and alcohol testing program results. Selected motor carriers are responsible for ensuring the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of the data submitted. The survey requires motor carriers to provide information to the Agency on the number of random tests conducted and the corresponding positive rates.
For the 2013 survey, notices were sent out to 3,251 randomly selected motor carriers primarily via email and U.S. mail for those motor carriers with invalid or no email addresses. Of these forms, 2,236 were completed and returned to FMCSA, resulting in usable data from 1,654 carriers comprising of 497,270 CDL drivers based on the motor carriers' survey responses. Respondents providing non-usable data represent entities that are out of business, exempt, have no testing program in place, or belong to consortia that did not test any drivers for the carrier during 2013.
The estimated positive random controlled substance test rate in 2013 is 0.7 percent. The 95-percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from 0.6-0.8 percent. In other words, if the survey were to be replicated, it would be expected that the confidence interval derived from each replication would contain the true usage rate in 95 out of 100 surveys. For 2011 and 2012, the estimated positive usage rate for drugs was estimated to be 0.9 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.
For calendar year 2015, in order to ensure reliability of the data, the FMCSA Administrator made the decision to maintain the annual testing percentage rate at 50 percent and sought additional information related to drivers' positive test rates. Following a third consecutive calendar year of data reporting the positive rate below 1.0 percent FMCSA announces that the random controlled substances annual percentage testing rate will change from 50 percent to 25 percent. The new minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing will be effective January 1, 2016. This change reflects the sustained low positive test rate and will result in an estimated $50 million in annual savings to motor carriers by requiring that fewer drivers be tested.
In accordance with 49 CFR 382.305(e)(2) if, in the future, the reported positive rate for any calendar year is equal to or greater than 1.0 percent, the FMCSA Administrator will increase the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing to 50 percent of all driver positions.
Effective January 1, 2016, the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances testing is 25 percent of the average number of driver positions. The minimum annual percentage rate for random alcohol testing will remain at 10 percent.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of public listening sessions.
The FMCSA announces that it will hold two public listening sessions, on January 12 and 31, 2016, to solicit information on the potential benefits and feasibility of voluntary compliance and ways to credit carriers and drivers who initiate and establish programs that promote safety beyond the standards established in FMCSA regulations. The recently enacted Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act mandates that the FMCSA Administrator allow recognition for a motor carrier that installs advanced safety equipment, enhanced driver fitness measures, fleet safety management tools, technologies, and programs and other standards for use by motor carriers to receive recognition, including credit or an improved Safety Measurement System (SMS) percentile. FMCSA is soliciting comment to develop a process for identifying and reviewing these opportunities to provide credit to those carriers and drivers who go above and beyond the regulatory requirements. The listening sessions are intended to provide interested parties with an opportunity to share their views on this topic with Agency representatives, along with any data or analysis they may have. All comments will be transcribed and placed in the docket referenced above for FMCSA's consideration. The entire proceedings of both meetings will be webcast.
The listening sessions will be held on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Local Time, and on Sunday, January 31, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time. If all interested parties have had the opportunity to comment, the sessions may conclude early.
The January 12 listening session will be held at the Kentucky International Convention Center, Room 108, 221 Fourth St., Louisville, KY 40202. The January 31 session will be held at the Georgia World Congress Center, Building C, 285 Andrew Young International Blvd. NW., Atlanta, GA. In addition to attending the session in person, the Agency offers several ways to provide comments, as enumerated below.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2015-0124 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received, without change, to
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by telephone at 202-366-2551.
If you need sign language interpretation or any other accessibility accommodation, please contact Ms. Watson by Monday, January 4, 2016, to allow us to arrange for such services. FMCSA cannot guarantee that interpreter services requested on short notice will be provided.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2015-0124), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may draft a notice of proposed rulemaking based on your comments and other information and analysis.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
The trucking and bus industries and the U.S. Department of Transportation have invested in the research, development, and testing of strategies and technologies to reduce truck and bus crashes. In September 2014, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) submitted a request to FMCSA to consider initiating a pilot program to investigate the benefits and feasibility of a voluntary compliance program. Citing research that has been underway for several years, the Agency established an Alternative Compliance team in December 2014, the goal of which was to analyze the concept and gather data to support how it might be developed and implemented.
On March 30-31, 2015, the Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) deliberated on the potential benefits and feasibility of a voluntary compliance program and ways to credit carriers and drivers who initiate and establish programs that promote safety beyond FMCSA's regulations. The MCSAC completed its deliberations during its June 15-16, 2015, meeting and subsequently submitted its final report on Task 15-1 to the Agency on September 21, 2015. A copy of the report is posted at the MCSAC's Web site,
On April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22770), the Agency published a notice requesting responses to specific questions and any supporting data the Agency should consider in the potential development of a Beyond Compliance program.
Section 5222 of the recently enacted the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1312) (FAST) mandates that the FMCSA Administrator allow recognition for a motor carrier that installs advanced safety equipment, enhanced driver fitness measures, fleet safety management tools, technologies, and programs and other standards for use by motor carriers to receive recognition, including credit or an improved SMS percentile. This provision requires the Administrator, after providing notice and comment, to develop a process for identifying and reviewing these opportunities to provide credit to those carriers and drivers who go above and beyond the regulatory requirements.
The January 12, 2016, session will be held at the American Bus Association's (ABA) Marketplace conference in Louisville, Kentucky. The January 31, 2016, session will be held at the United Motorcoach Association (UMA) Expo 2016 conference in Atlanta, Georgia.
All comments will be transcribed and placed in the docket referenced above for FMCSA's consideration. The entire proceedings of both meetings will be webcast.
The listening session is open to the public. Speakers should try to limit their remarks to 3-5 minutes. No preregistration is required. Attendees may submit material to the FMCSA staff at the session for inclusion in the pubic
FMCSA would like to know the views of the public on the concept, with any data or analysis to support it, with regard to 3 basic areas:
(1) What voluntary technologies or safety program best practices would be appropriate for beyond compliance; (2) what type of incentives would encourage motor carriers to invest in technologies and best practices programs; and (3) how FMCSA would verify that the voluntary technologies or safety programs are being implemented.
FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and a separate transcription of each listening session will be prepared by an official court reporter.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated October 28, 2015, the Maine Eastern Railroad (MERR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2005-20383.
This request is for relief from the mechanical locking requirements found in 49 CFR 236.312,
MERR states that it was granted relief from the 1-inch locking requirement in 2005 in Docket Number FRA-2005-20383, but allowed that waiver to expire in 2010. MERR notes that it is not possible to maintain the 1-inch span lock retraction limit in cold-temperature extremes. These conditions will cause the movable span-locking members to move within the fixed span positions enough to cause a noncompliance of the 1-inch requirement. The contraction of the steel affects the moveable span's west-end span lock adjustment, which requires a maintainer to travel to the bridge piers to seasonally adjust both west-end span lock circuit controller boxes to a setting of 2 inches to compensate for the contraction. Later in the season, the settings must be returned to 1 inch. This often places the maintainer at a safety risk due to icy conditions. The span lock members extend approximately 13 inches in length into the fixed portions when the movable span is locked with the fixed span.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
•
•
•
Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated September 25, 2015, BNSF Railway (BNSF) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0130.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 213.113(a), BNSF requests a waiver from the accepted practice of stop/start rail testing to deploy nonstop continuous test rail flaw inspection to begin November 1, 2015, and to be in effect for 3 years.
The test process would occur on the main tracks of the following subdivisions: Panhandle, Hereford, Clovis, Gallup, Seligman, Fort Scott, Thayer North, Thayer South, Birmingham, Amory, Cuba, River, Cherokee, and Afton.
BNSF will gradually deploy the process over time as they measure the results and prioritize the areas expected to benefit the most from this alternative method. BNSF will notify FRA when implementing on a specific subdivision. Multiple data acquisition and/or field verification vehicles may be used as required to accomplish the desired testing production rates.
Currently, the BNSF subdivisions proposed for nonstop testing are required by 49 CFR 213.237,
The nonstop continuous tests will be conducted with self-propelled ultrasonic rail flaw detection vehicles capable of data acquisition speeds up to 30 mph. Upon completion of each daily run, the acquired data will be analyzed offline by technical experts with specific analysis tools proven to be effective on a worldwide basis for over 10 years, including the most recent several years of experience in the United States. The analysis process will provide the categorization and prioritization of suspect locations to be verified in the field.
Field verification will be conducted by qualified and certified rail test professionals with validation equipment based on global positioning system location and known track features identified within the flaw detection electronic record. All verifications will occur within 72 hours from completion of the data acquisition test run. Remedial actions will be applied based on the regulations set for in 49 CFR 213.113,
BNSF believes nonstop continuous rail testing will provide the capability to reduce service failure and derailment risk through implementation of advanced technologies and processes that enable BNSF to more completely and frequently conduct the inspection for their rail network.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
• Web site:
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Communications received by January 25, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated November 3, 2015, General Electric Transportation (GE) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0127.
GE has requested a waiver of compliance from the requirement of 49 CFR 229.129(b)(1), that each locomotive (or a sampling of similar locomotives) be tested for compliance with the sound level requirements given in 49 CFR 229.129(a)(1) prior to entering service, for 31 new ET44AC Locomotives to be delivered to CSX Transportation (CSX) and numbered CSX 3375 to CSX 3405. The locomotives will be manufactured in Erie, PA, and delivered to purchasers from January through March 2016, when weather conditions will likely preclude successful testing in accordance with 49 CFR 229.129(c)(6). GE requests that the deadline for completing the horn testing on these locomotives be extended until September 30, 2016. In support of this petition, GE has submitted data showing that horns on the previous 2015 model ET44AC locomotives were compliant with both high and low sound level requirements, with some margin above the minimum and below the maximum. GE also submitted illustrations demonstrating that the horn location has not been altered and that the only concern is changes in the component of the horn noise affected by reflectance off the roof and roof discontinuities on the 2016 model locomotives. Changes are generally less than 2 inches.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Communications received by January 25, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated September 22, 2015, Keolis Commuter Services (Keolis), contract operator of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTX) commuter rail system, has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0131.
Keolis seeks a temporary waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 238.115(b)(2) regarding passenger car emergency lighting until October 31, 2016. Keolis is seeking this temporary relief because 70 percent of its rolling stock fleet (233 of 332 coaches encompassing series: 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, 1500, 1600, and 1700), ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and placed into service prior to September 9, 2002, will not meet the emergency lighting requirement deadline of December 31, 2015. Keolis justifies the need for this deadline because of the delay in finding qualified vendors and adding the required labor forces to successfully complete this installation. MBTX rolling stock fleet was not in compliance with all applicable safety standards. The extra time sought in this petition will allow Keolis to finish its ongoing program (58 coaches have been upgraded to date) so that 70 percent of this rolling stock is in compliance.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated September 22, 2015, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2015-0132.
Metra seeks a 6-month waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 238.115(b)(1)-(2) regarding passenger car emergency lighting (until June 30, 2016). Metra is seeking this temporary relief because 70 percent of its passenger rolling stock fleet of 544 coaches, which were ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and placed into service prior to September 9, 2002, will not meet the emergency lighting requirement deadline of December 31, 2015. Metra justifies the need for this deadline extension because of ongoing funding and technical difficulties. The extra time sought in this petition will allow Metra to retrofit 70 percent of its passenger rolling stock fleet to meet the requirements.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated September 17, 2014, Pennsylvania Northeast Regional Railroad Authority (PNRRA) and Delaware-Lackawanna Railroad (DL) have jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2000-7275.
PNRRA provides an historic trolley excursion in conjunction with the Lackawanna County Electric City Trolley Station and Museum (Trolley Museum). DL has operated and dispatched this historic trolley since the start of service in April 2001. The purpose of this historic trolley excursion is to expand the historical interpretation provided by the Trolley Museum by offering a tourist excursion using vintage trolley cars, and is not in any way an urban transit operation. Beginning at the Steamtown Passenger Depot, this trolley car excursion operates via PNRRA's Brady Line within the National Park Service's Steamtown Yard, and thence along the historic Laurel Line past the Scranton Iron Furnaces and Roaring Brook, to a station stop at the Historic Trolley Maintenance Building, a distance of just under 5 miles. Because of the connection to the general railroad system over the shared track portion, current trolley operations will continue to use the successful FRA-approved temporal separation procedure that guarantees exclusive use of this shared trackage during its exclusive excursion/passenger period.
The route of the historic trolley excursion has undergone several extensions since its original 1-mile run in 2001. One mile was added in 2002 and 3 miles were added in May 2004. In June 2006, a 1,870-foot extension brought the route into its new terminus at the station platform on Track 1 outside the Historic Trolley Maintenance Building.
PNRRA seeks an extension of its waiver of compliance from several parts of 49 CFR (first granted by FRA in 2001, extended in 2006 and 2011) for continued operation of its historic trolley car excursion that shares trackage with the general railroad system. This request is consistent with the requirements set forth in the
Based on the foregoing, PNRRA is again seeking an extension of the terms and conditions of its current waiver of compliance from several regulatory sections. Specifically, PNRRA seeks relief from the following: 49 CFR part 221—Rear-End Marking Device—Passenger, Commuter and Freight Trains; 49 CFR part 223—Safety Glazing Standards—Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses; 49 CFR 229.129—
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate Docket Number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated November 13, 2015, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a Special Approval of certain industry standards in accordance with the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 231.33,
AAR, on behalf of itself and its member railroads, submitted a petition for Special Approval of existing industry safety appliance standards contained in 49 CFR part 231, Railroad Safety Appliance Standards, and minor edits to AAR Standard S-2044 appendices that have been previously approved by FRA. AAR is requesting approval of the standards and specifications delineated in AAR Standard S-2044, Appendices D1, Safety Appliances for Flatcars with Full Decks; F3, Safety Appliances for Cars with Recessed Car Body Ends; and H1, Safety Appliances for Enclosed Vehicle-Carrying Cars and Vehicle-Carrying Superstructures Applied to Flatcars. AAR Standard S-2044 and its appendices have been developed to serve as requirements for safety appliance arrangements. The revised standard and its appendices are to be applied to new railroad freight cars if approved by FRA.
AAR Standard S-2044 was established by the AAR Safety Appliance Task Force (Task Force), which was created by AAR's Equipment Engineering Committee (EEC) to develop industry standards for safety appliance arrangements on modern railcar types not explicitly covered by 49 CFR part 231. The Task Force consists of representatives from Class I railroads, labor unions, car builders, private car owners, and shippers, along with ergonomics experts and government representatives from FRA and Transport Canada, who participate as nonvoting members. The Task Force drafted a base safety appliance standard for all car types, plus industry safety appliance standards for specific car types. These industry standards have been adopted by AAR's Engineering Equipment Committee and, with FRA's approval, will serve as the core criteria for safety appliance arrangements on railcars that are more specialized in design. With its petition, AAR included a deviation table for Appendix D1 that shows where the AAR standard differs from the regulatory text in 49 CFR part 231 and provides the rationale for any deviations, along with analysis showing that the AAR Standard S-2044 provides an equal or greater level of safety in each instance. In addition, the table describes the ergonomic suitability of many of the proposed arrangements in normal use, as the standards were developed by the Task Force to incorporate ergonomic design principles.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice of termination of Federal review.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces the termination of the Liberty Natural Gas LLC (Liberty) Port Ambrose Deepwater Port License Application and all related Federal processing activities required by applicable provisions of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (Act).
On September 28, 2015, Liberty submitted to MARAD and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) an application under the Act for a license and all Federal authorizations required to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port for the importation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the United States. The deepwater port, known as Port Ambrose, was proposed to be located in the offshore waters of New York and New Jersey, in the New York Bight. On June 14, 2013, MARAD and USCG deemed the application complete, designated New York and New Jersey as adjacent coastal states (ACS) and commenced the Federal application review process required under the Act. This process also included a comprehensive environmental assessment, public meetings and coordination of the application review process with relevant Federal and State agencies.
Upon completion of the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the final public licensing hearings, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo of the State of New York, notified the Maritime Administration, by letter dated November 12, 2015, of his disapproval of the Liberty Port Ambrose deepwater port project. Governor Cuomo's disapproval was issued in accordance with the provisions outlined in 33 U.S.C. Section 1508(c)(8) which state, the Secretary (or Maritime Administrator by delegated authority) may issue a deepwater port license only if the Governor of the ACS approves or is presumed to approve, issuance of the license. In light of Governor Cuomo's disapproval of the application, Liberty notified MARAD, by letter dated November 18, 2015, of its withdrawal of the Port Ambrose license application from the Federal review process. As a consequence of Liberty's withdrawal of its application, the Federal application review process and all related Federal processing activities were terminated on November 18, 2015. This
Ms. Yvette M. Fields, Director, Office of Deepwater Ports and Offshore Activities, Maritime Administration, telephone 202-366-0926, email:
On September 28, 2012, Liberty submitted to MARAD and USCG an application for a license and all Federal authorizations required to own, construct, and operate a natural gas import deepwater port known as Port Ambrose. Specifically, the Port Ambrose license application proposed construction and operation of an offshore natural gas deepwater port facility that would have been located 16.1 nautical miles southeast of Jones Beach, New York, 24.9 nautical miles east of Long Branch, New Jersey, and 27.1 nautical miles from the entrance to New York Harbor in a water depth of approximately 103 feet.
As required under the Act, MARAD and USCG, acting as co-lead agencies, commenced a formal review of the Port Ambrose deepwater port license application. The review included an application completeness determination, development of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by NEPA, in-depth review of the financial capacity of the applicant to construct, operate and decommission the proposed deepwater port and assessment of the applicant's ability to meet all other license criteria of the Act. The initial Port Ambrose deepwater port Notice of Application (NOA) was published in the
Upon conclusion of the final public licensing hearings and completion of consistency reviews by the relevant state agencies, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, by letter dated November 12, 2015, advised MARAD of his disapproval of Liberty's Port Ambrose deepwater port license application. Governor Cuomo disapproved the application in accordance with his authority as an ACS Governor, as provided under Section 1508(b)(1) of the Act. Governor Cuomo's disapproval was based on concerns related to his assessment of the proposed project's inherent security risks, impacts of extreme weather events, disruption of commercial navigation and fishing activities, and the potential interference with currently pending renewable energy projects proposed for the State of New York.
On November 18, 2015, in light of Governor Cuomo's disapproval of the Port Ambrose license application, Liberty notified MARAD of its withdrawal of the application from the Federal review process. As a consequence of the withdrawal of the application, the Federal review process was terminated on November 18, 2015. This public notice serves as an official announcement of the termination of the Liberty Natural Gas Port Ambrose deepwater port license application and all other related Federal processing activities.
Further, as a result of the termination of the application and related processing activities, no Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued by MARAD for the Liberty Port Ambrose license application. It should be noted, however, that all project related information compiled and assessed during the application review will be incorporated into the final administrative record for the Liberty Port Ambrose deepwater license application.
Additional information regarding the Liberty Port Ambrose deepwater port license application, comments, supporting information and other
49 CFR 1.93)
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice of Receipt of Amended Application; Request for Comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD), in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), announces the receipt and availability of the amended deepwater port license application submitted by Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin LNG) on November 19, 2015 (amended application). The purpose of this
A
The proposed Delfin LNG deepwater port incorporates onshore components, which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). These facilities are described in the section of this notice titled “FERC Application.”
Mr. Roddy Bachman, USCG, telephone: 202-372-1451, email:
We request public comments on the amended application for the proposed deepwater port. You can submit comments directly to the Docket Operations Facility during the public comment period from publication date of this Notice until Tuesday, January 19, 2016. We will consider all comments and materials received during the public comment period. Public comment submissions must be unbound, no larger than 8
Submit comments or material using only one of the following methods:
• Online: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
While not required, it is preferred that comments be submitted electronically, which facilitates use of computer software to sort, organize and search the comments. If you submit your comments electronically, it is not necessary to also submit a hard copy.
On May 8, 2015, as supplemented on June 19, 2015, MARAD and USCG received an application from Delfin LNG for all Federal authorizations required for a license to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port for the export of natural gas. On Thursday, July 16, 2015, a
Two public scoping meetings were held in connection with the original Delfin LNG application. The first public scoping meeting was held in Lake Charles, Louisiana on August 18, 2015, and the second public scoping meeting was held in Beaumont, Texas on August 19, 2015. After the public scoping meetings concluded, Delfin LNG advised MARAD and USCG of its intent to amend the original application.
In anticipation of the amended application, MARAD and USCG issued a regulatory “stop-clock” letter to Delfin LNG on September 18, 2015. That letter commenced a regulatory “stop-clock,” effective September 18, 2015, which would remain in effect until MARAD and USCG received the amended application and determined it contained sufficient information to continue the Federal review process. On November 19, 2015, Delfin LNG submitted its amended application to MARAD and USCG.
Working in coordination with participating Federal and State agencies, we will commence processing the amended application and complete a Draft EIS which analyzes reasonable alternatives to, and the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of, the proposed action. When the Draft EIS is complete and ready for public review, a
The specific project changes from the original Delfin LNG application are: 1) the liquefaction capacity of the four proposed FLNGVs that would service the proposed Delfin deepwater port is increased from a base design capacity of two million metric tons per annum
The amended application also provides for increased natural gas compression horsepower requirements at the onshore facility. These are described in the section of this
Other fundamental aspects of the proposed Delfin LNG project remain unchanged, including Port Delfin's location nearly 40 nautical miles offshore of Louisiana, the reuse and repurpose of two existing offshore pipelines, installation of new pipeline laterals leading to each tower yoke mooring system (TYMS), construction of a pipeline bypass around an existing platform at WC 167, and use of air cooling technology for the natural gas liquefaction process.
On May 8, 2015, Delfin LNG filed its original application with FERC requesting authorizations pursuant to the Natural Gas Act and 18 CFR part 157 for the onshore components of the proposed deepwater port terminal including authorization to use the existing pipeline infrastructure, which includes leasing a segment of pipeline from HIOS extending from the terminus of the UTOS pipeline offshore. On May 20, 2015, FERC issued its
On November 19, 2015, HIOS filed an application (FERC Docket No. CP16-20-000) to abandon certain offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, including its 66-mile-long mainline, an offshore platform, and related facilities (“HIOS Repurposed Facilities”). Also, on November 19, 2015, Delfin LNG filed an amended application in FERC Docket No. CP15-490-001 to use the HIOS Repurposed Facilities and to revise the onshore component of its deepwater port project. On December 1, 2015, FERC issued a
The amended FERC application specifically discusses the onshore facility and adjustments to the onshore operations that would involve reactivating approximately 1.1 miles of the existing UTOS pipeline; the addition of four new onshore compressors totaling 120,000 horsepower of new compression; activation of associated metering and regulation facilities; the installation of new supply header pipelines (which would consist of 0.25 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline to connect the former UTOS line to the new meter station) and 0.6 miles of new twin 30-inch-diameter pipelines between Transco Station 44 and the new compressor station site. The original FERC application consisted of three new onshore compressors totaling 74,000 horsepower.
Additional information regarding the details of Delfin LNG's original and amended application to the FERC is on file and open to public inspection. Project filings may be viewed on the web at
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to
33 U.S.C. 1501,
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of Calendar Year 2016 Minimum Annual Percentage Rate for Random Drug Testing; Reminder for Operators to Report Contractor Management Information System (MIS) Data; and Reminder of Method for Operators to Obtain User Name and Password for Electronic Reporting.
PHMSA has determined that the minimum random drug testing rate for covered employees will remain at 25 percent during calendar year 2016. Operators are reminded that drug and alcohol testing information must be submitted for contractors performing or ready to perform covered functions. For calendar year 2015 reporting, PHMSA will not attempt to mail the “user name” and “password” for the Drug and Alcohol Management Information System (DAMIS) to operators, but will make the user name and password available in the PHMSA Portal (
Effective January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Blaine Keener, Director of Safety Data Systems and Analysis, by telephone at 202-366-0970 or by email at
Operators of gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines and operators of liquefied natural gas facilities must randomly select and test a percentage of covered employees for prohibited drug use. Pursuant to 49 CFR 199.105(c)(2), (3), and (4), the PHMSA Administrator's decision on whether to change the minimum annual random drug testing rate is based on the reported random drug test positive rate for the pipeline industry. The data considered by the Administrator comes from operators' annual submissions of MIS reports required by § 199.119(a). If the reported random drug test positive rate is less than one percent, the Administrator may continue the minimum random drug testing rate at 25 percent. In calendar year 2014, the random drug test positive rate was less than one percent. Therefore, the
On January 19, 2010, PHMSA published an Advisory Bulletin (75 FR 2926) implementing the annual collection of contractor MIS drug and alcohol testing data. An operator's report to PHMSA is not considered complete until an MIS report is submitted for each contractor that performed covered functions as defined in 49 CFR part § 199.3.
In previous years, PHMSA attempted to mail the DAMIS user name and password to operator staff with responsibility for submitting DAMIS reports. Based on the number of phone calls to PHMSA each year requesting this information, the mailing process has not been effective. Pipeline operators have been submitting reports required by Parts 191 and 195 through the PHMSA Portal (
The user name and password required for an operator to access DAMIS and enter calendar year 2015 data will be available to all staff with access to the PHMSA Portal in late December 2015. When the DAMIS user name and password is available in the Portal, all registered users will receive an email to that effect. Operator staff with responsibility for submitting DAMIS reports should coordinate with registered Portal users to obtain the DAMIS user name and password. Registered Portal users for an operator typically include the U.S. Department of Transportation Compliance Officer and staff or consultants with responsibility for submitting annual and incident reports on PHMSA F 7000- and 7100-series forms.
For operators that have failed to register staff in the PHMSA Portal for Part 191 and 195 reporting purposes, operator staff responsible for submitting DAMIS reports can register in the Portal by following the instructions at:
Pursuant to §§ 199.119(a) and 199.229(a), operators with 50 or more covered employees, including both operator and contractor staff, are required to submit DAMIS reports annually. Operators with less than 50 total covered employees are required to report only upon written request from PHMSA. If an operator has submitted a calendar year 2013 or later DAMIS report with less than 50 total covered employees, the PHMSA Portal message may state that no calendar year 2015 DAMIS report is required. Some of these operators may have grown to more than 50 covered employees during calendar year 2015. The Portal message will include instructions for how these operators can obtain a calendar year 2015 DAMIS user name and password.
49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, PHMSA is publishing this notice of a special permit request we have received from a pipeline operator, seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks public comments on this request, including comments on any safety or environmental impacts. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will evaluate the request and determine whether to grant or deny a special permit.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by January 25, 2016.
Comments should reference the docket number for the specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
PHMSA has received a request for a special permit from a pipeline operator seeking relief from compliance with certain
Before acting on this special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments will be evaluated after this date if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny a request.
PHMSA has received the following special permit request:
49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.97.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting PRA-related comment concerning a new information collection titled, “Draft Bulletin: Risk Management Guidance for Higher Loan-to-Value Lending in Communities Targeted for Revitalization” (draft guidance).
You should submit written comments by February 22, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-NEW, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, or for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supports efforts by national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) to assist in the revitalization, stabilization, or redevelopment (referred to in this bulletin individually and collectively as revitalization) of distressed communities through prudent residential mortgage lending. The OCC recognizes that banks and other parties have expressed concern that depressed housing values in certain distressed communities in the United States inhibit mortgage lending in these communities. One way in which banks can support revitalization efforts in distressed communities is by offering mortgage products for purchasing, or purchasing and rehabilitating, one- to four-unit residential properties where the loan amount may exceed supervisory loan-to-value (SLTV) limits. This bulletin provides guidance for managing risks associated with originating certain residential mortgage loans that exceed SLTV limits.
This guidance applies to all OCC-supervised banks wishing to establish a program for originating owner-occupied residential mortgage loans that exceed SLTV limits in communities targeted for revitalization.
This bulletin provides guidance regarding the
• Circumstances under which banks may establish programs to originate certain owner-occupied residential mortgage loans that exceed SLTV limits.
• OCC's supervisory considerations regarding such programs.
As described in this bulletin, the OCC will actively monitor and evaluate the programs established by banks, including the performance of owner-occupied residential mortgage loans that exceed the SLTV limits. At least annually, the OCC will assess whether the programs are contributing to the revitalization of targeted communities and whether the banks are adequately controlling the risks associated with such higher loan-to-value (LTV) lending.
Some U.S. communities continue to confront lagging home values. Financing difficulties caused by depressed housing markets are particularly pronounced in communities that were significantly affected by the financial crisis and housing market decline.
As these communities work to stabilize home ownership and home values, the rehabilitation of abandoned or distressed housing stock is an important component of broader efforts to strengthen communities. Local governments, government-affiliated entities, community-based organizations, financial institutions, and others have developed creative solutions for some of these challenges. These solutions include strategies for acquiring and rehabilitating properties in communities targeted for revitalization. Community groups, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, and state and local entities, including land banks, are working together to develop and implement innovative residential mortgage financing to bring needed lending to economically distressed areas. The efforts include providing second-lien loans to finance rehabilitation costs, interest-rate discounts, and down payment and closing cost assistance. The Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac all currently offer rehabilitation financing.
In addition to participating in these and other third-party efforts, banks have expressed a desire to participate in revitalization efforts of distressed communities by offering their own loan products. The value of the collateral in a distressed community, however, can present challenges to banks' residential lending in part because of current SLTV limits. Distressed sales, including short sales and foreclosures, often negatively affect home values in these communities. Further, in communities with minimal sales activity, finding comparable property sales becomes challenging when appraisals or evaluations are required. Buyers of distressed properties can have particular difficulty securing adequate financing to cover the often substantial renovation costs required to make the properties habitable.
The OCC recognizes that supporting long-term community revitalization may necessitate responsible innovative lending strategies. One way in which banks can support revitalization efforts is through prudent lending within established exceptions to the SLTV limits for residential loans. Existing regulations and guidelines recognize that it may be appropriate, in individual cases, for banks to make loans in excess of the SLTV limits, based on support provided by other credit factors.
The OCC believes that banks can offer residential mortgage loans in communities targeted for revitalization in a manner consistent with safe and sound lending practices. As described later in section I of this bulletin, such loans may include eligible loans in eligible communities originated in accordance with a board-approved program (referred to as a program in this bulletin). Important elements of any program are the bank's policies and procedures for complying with the ability-to-repay standard of Regulation Z
Lending under such a program may be in the best interest of the bank, individual borrowers, and the community. Additionally, the bank may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for SLTV exception loans depending on the specifics of the program. SLTV exception lending is not, however, without risk. The OCC will actively monitor and evaluate how a bank's program manages the risks, particularly to the bank and its borrowers, and the effect the program has on the community targeted by the bank's program. At least annually, the OCC also will evaluate the overall impact of programs offered by all banks in communities targeted for revitalization.
An eligible loan should be a permanent mortgage for the purchase of, or purchase and rehabilitation of, an owner-occupied residential property located in an eligible community. An eligible loan also should have an original loan balance of $200,000 or less and be originated under a program developed pursuant to this bulletin.
The OCC recognizes that eligible loans will have an LTV ratio equal to or exceeding 90 percent without mortgage insurance or readily marketable, or other acceptable, collateral.
This bulletin does not apply to home equity loans, lines of credit, or refinancing loans.
An eligible community should be one that has been officially targeted for revitalization by a federal, state, or municipal governmental entity or agency, or by a government-designated entity such as a land bank.
Existing regulations and guidelines require that each bank adopt and maintain a general lending policy that establishes appropriate limits and standards for extensions of credit that are secured by liens or interests in real estate or that finance building construction or other improvements.
• Defined geographies of an eligible community where the bank will consider making eligible loans under the program
• Amount, and the duration, of the bank's financial commitment to the program.
• Limitation on the aggregate level of committed eligible loans as a percentage of tier 1 capital (as defined in 12 CFR 3.2), which should not exceed 10 percent.
• Characteristics of eligible loans, including loan structure, credit terms, interest rate and fees, and maximum loan size, which should not exceed $200,000.
• Underwriting standards and approval processes for eligible loans, including appropriate documentation of relevant credit factors and document retention standards.
• Real estate appraisal and evaluation criteria applicable to eligible loans.
• Credit administration requirements for eligible loans, including detailed guidelines regarding oversight of the rehabilitation process, such as controls over contracts, disbursements, inspections, and project management.
• Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the ability-to-repay and other requirements of 12 CFR 1026, anti-discrimination laws, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
• Content, form, and timing of notice(s) the bank will provide in connection with eligible loans to clearly inform the borrower that:
• Incentives that may be available to qualifying borrowers (
• Monitoring and internal reporting requirements sufficient to: (1) Assess the performance, impact, trends, and success of the program; and (2) inform the board on at least a quarterly basis of the aggregate dollar amount, and percentage of tier 1 capital, of committed eligible loans in relation to the board-approved limitation.
The bank should notify the appropriate OCC supervisory office in writing at least 30 days before the bank's first origination of an eligible loan pursuant to the program or the bank's making of any substantive change to a previously submitted program. Substantive changes may include the addition of a new eligible community, an increase in the financial commitment or duration of a program, or material changes to eligible loan characteristics or underwriting standards. Such notice should include:
• The date the bank's board (or appropriately designated board committee) approved the program's policies and procedures.
• A copy of the board-approved policies and procedures.
After receiving the bank's notice to the OCC, examiners will evaluate the bank's program to assess whether it complies with the requirements of applicable laws and regulations and is consistent with safe and sound lending practices, this bulletin, and other relevant guidance. Examiners' assessment will include review of the:
• Financial commitment (as a dollar amount and a percentage of Tier 1 capital) and defined geographies for originating eligible loans.
• Characteristics of eligible loans and incentives, if available, to qualifying borrowers.
• Standards for the underwriting, collateral review, credit administration, and approval of eligible loans.
• Borrower notice(s).
• Monitoring and reporting procedures for eligible loans.
• Process for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
In connection with the evaluation of the bank's program, examiners may request clarification or changes to the bank's policies and procedures before the bank's first origination of an eligible loan pursuant to the program or the bank's making of any substantive change to a previously submitted program. Such requests may include clarification or changes to ensure the program is consistent with safe and sound lending practices.
During the course of subsequent supervisory activities, examiners also will monitor and evaluate the program. Examiners evaluations will include consideration of the:
• Bank's governance of the program and whether the program adequately manages the various risks.
• Performance of loans that exceed the SLTV limits and whether delinquent eligible loans are managed and accurately classified consistent with the OCC's existing guidance on delinquent loans and in compliance with applicable laws pertaining to loans in delinquency.
• Bank's internal reporting of program performance, impact, trends, and overall success.
• Process to establish and document community development consideration, if applicable, under the Community Reinvestment Act.
For banks found to have shortfalls or unsatisfactory governance or controls, examiners will communicate these findings to the bank and require remediation to continue the lending activity. In addition, examiners may review individual eligible loans to assess asset quality, credit risk, and consumer compliance.
At least annually, the OCC will evaluate the overall impact of banks' programs in communities targeted for revitalization. The OCC's evaluations will consider, among other matters, whether the programs adequately control the various risks, the performance of loans that exceed the SLTV limits, and the effect such lending has had on the housing market and other economic indicators in communities targeted for revitalization.
Based on these evaluations, the OCC may amend or rescind this bulletin. Any decision by the OCC to materially amend or rescind this bulletin will apply only to the origination of new loans that exceed the SLTV limits. Any loans originated that are consistent with this bulletin, or any subsequent revisions thereof, when made will not be deemed to be unsafe and unsound solely because of any material amendment or rescission of this bulletin.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 5 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2015 Revision, published July 1, 2015, at 80 FR 37735.
Surety Bond Section at (202) 874-6850.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following companies:
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Section, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13667 and four individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13712, and whose names have been added to OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective December 18, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On December 18, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following two individuals pursuant to E.O. 13667, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic”:
Also on December 18, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following four individuals pursuant to E.O. 13712, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi”:
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 8844, Empowerment Zone Employment Credit.
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
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.
Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, proposes to amend the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations. This proposed rule makes changes to CCDF regulations to detail provisions of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 in order to protect the health and safety of children in child care; help parents make informed consumer choices and access information to support child development; provide equal access to stable, high quality child care for low-income children; and enhance the overall quality of child care and the early childhood workforce.
In order to be considered, written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before February 22, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ACF-2015-0011and/or RIN number 0970-AC67, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Andrew Williams, Office of Child Care, 202-205-0750 (not a toll-free call). Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Time.
The bipartisan CCDBG Act of 2014 made sweeping statutory changes that will require significant reforms to State and Territory CCDF programs to raise the health, safety, and quality of child care and provide more stable child care assistance to families. It expanded the purposes of the CCDF for the first time since 1996, ushering in a new era for child care in this country. Since 1996, a significant body of research has demonstrated the importance of early childhood development and how stable, high quality early experiences can positively influence that development and contribute to children's futures. In particular, low-income children stand to benefit the most from a high quality early childhood experience. Research has also shown the important role of child care financial assistance in helping parents afford reliable child care in order to get and keep stable employment or pursue education. The reauthorized law recognizes CCDF as an integral program to promote both the healthy development of children and parents' pathways to economic stability.
In Fiscal Year 2014, CCDF provided child care assistance to 1.4 million children from nearly 1 million low-income working families in an average month. The Congressional reauthorization of CCDBG made clear that the prior law was inadequate to protect the health and safety of children in care and that more needs to be done to increase the quality of CCDF-funded child care. It also recognized the central importance of access to subsidy continuity in supporting parents' ability to achieve financial stability and children's ability to develop nurturing relationships with their caregivers, which creates the foundation for a high quality early learning experience.
Protect Health and Safety of Children in Child Care. This proposed rule would provide detail on the health and safety standards established in the new law, including health and safety training, comprehensive background checks, and monitoring. The law requires providers receiving CCDF funds (including those that are license-exempt) to be monitored, at least annually, to determine whether health and safety practices and standards are being followed in the child care setting, including a pre-licensure visit for licensed providers. Regular monitoring of child care settings is necessary to ensure compliance with appropriate standards that protect the health and safety of children. The proposed rule would allow Lead Agencies to develop alternative monitoring requirements for CCDF-funded care provided in the child's home and would exempt relative caregivers from the monitoring requirement at the option of Lead Agencies.
In this proposed rule, we address the Act's (
The Act requires Lead Agencies to establish standards in ten topic areas related to health and safety that are fundamental for any child care setting, such as first aid, CPR, and safe sleep practices. We propose to add recognizing and reporting child abuse and neglect to this list. The Act also requires Lead Agencies to maintain records of substantiated parental complaints about child care. In this NPRM, we propose requiring Lead Agencies to designate a hotline or similar reporting process for parental complaints. Child care providers would also be required to report serious injuries or deaths that occur in child care settings in order to inform regulatory or other policy changes to improve health and safety.
Help Parents Make Informed Consumer Choices and Access Information to Support Child Development. The Act expanded requirements for the content of consumer education to be made available to parents receiving CCDF assistance, the public, and where applicable, child care providers. By adding providers, Congress recognized the positive role trusted caregivers can play in communicating and partnering with parents on a daily basis regarding their children's development and available resources in the community. Effective consumer education strategies are important to inform parental choice of child care and also to engage parents in the development of their children in child care settings—a new purpose of the CCDF. States and Territories have the opportunity to consider how information can be best provided to low-income parents through their interactions with CCDF, partner agencies, and child care providers, as well as through electronic means such as a Web site. Parents face great challenges in finding reliable information and making informed consumer choices about child care for their children. The new law strengthens and builds on a foundational tenet of CCDF—the primacy of parental choice—by requiring that Lead Agencies provide parents information about their child care options and the quality of child care providers as available.
The Act requires Lead Agencies to make available via a consumer-friendly and easily-accessible Web site, information on policies and procedures regarding: (1) Licensing child care providers; (2) conducting background checks and the offenses that would keep a provider from being allowed to care for children; and (3) monitoring of child care providers. We are proposing this be done through a single Web site that is easy for families to navigate and provides widest possible access to individuals who speak languages other than English and persons with disabilities. We propose that Lead Agencies provide information about the quality of providers on the consumer Web site, if available, and give parents receiving CCDF information about the quality of their chosen providers.
The law requires Lead Agencies to make results of monitoring available in a consumer-friendly and easily accessible manner. We are proposing that this include posting at least five years of full monitoring reports, beginning with the effective date and going forward, in a timely manner for parents and providers. In the case that full reports are not in plain language, Lead Agencies must post a plain language summary or interpretation in addition to the full monitoring and inspection report. Parents should not have to parse through administrative code or understand advanced legal terms to determine whether safety violations have occurred in a child care setting.
Congress added a number of content areas that will support parents in their role as their child's first and most important teacher. In keeping with a new purpose of the CCDF program to “promote involvement by parents and family members in the development of their children in child care settings,” the law requires information related to best practices in child development and State policies regarding child social and emotional development, including any State policies relevant to expulsion of children under age 5 from child care settings, be made available. The reauthorized law also requires that Lead Agencies provide information that can help parents identify other financial benefits and services that may support their pathway to economic stability. Families eligible for child care assistance are often eligible for other supports, and the law specifies that information on several public benefit programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), be provided to them. In addition, the law requires information be provided on the programs and services that are part of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), such as early intervention and special education services and that parents are given information on how to obtain a developmental screening for their child. Low-income parents deserve to have easy access to the full range of
Provide Equal Access to High Quality Child Care for Low-Income Children. Congress established requirements that will provide more stable child care financial assistance to families, including extending children's eligibility for child care for a minimum of 12 months, regardless of increases in parents' earnings (as long as income remains at or below the Federal eligibility limit) and temporary changes in participation in work, training, or education. This will make it easier for parents to maintain employment or complete education programs and supports both family financial stability and the relationship between children and their caregivers. Under the law, Lead Agencies that choose to end assistance prior to 12 months, due to a non-temporary change in a parent's work, training, or education participation, must continue assistance for a minimum of three months to allow for job search activities.
This proposed rule would require a set of policies intended to stabilize families' access to child care assistance and, in turn, help stabilize their employment or education and their child's care arrangement. These policies also have the potential to stabilize the revenue of child care providers who receive CCDF funds, as they would experience more predictable, reliable, and timely payments for services. We propose to reduce reporting requirements for families that can result in them unduly losing their assistance. Parents often find it difficult to navigate administrative processes and paperwork required to maintain their eligibility, and State policies can be inflexible to changes in a family's circumstances. These provisions also make it easier for Lead Agencies to align CCDF policies with other programs, such as SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, Early Head Start, and Head Start. More than half of children receiving CCDF-funded child care have incomes under poverty and qualify for Head Start and significant proportions of CCDF families are also eligible for SNAP. In this proposed rule, while families may be determined to be ineligible within the minimum 12 month eligibility period if their income exceeds 85% SMI (taking into account irregular fluctuations in income) or, at Lead Agency option, the family experiences a non-temporary cessation in job, training, or education, we clarify that additional State-imposed eligibility criteria apply only at the time of initial eligibility determination and redetermination and provide examples of changes in parents' scheduling and conditions of employment that meet the statutory intent of stabilizing assistance for families through changes in circumstance. We propose that Lead Agencies that set their income eligibility threshold below 85 percent of State median income (SMI) must allow parents who otherwise qualify for CCDF assistance to continue receiving assistance, at subsequent redeterminations, until their income exceeds the Federal income limit (85 percent of SMI for a family of the same size) or for a period of at least one year after the point at which the family's income exceeds the State eligibility threshold. This approach promotes continuity of care for children while allowing for wage growth for families to move on a path toward economic stability. All too often, getting and keeping CCDF assistance is overly burdensome for parents, resulting in short durations of assistance and churning on and off CCDF as parents lose assistance and then later return. This instability disrupts parental employment and education, harms children, and runs counter to nearly all of CCDF's purposes. We believe this full set of provisions that facilitates easier and sustained access to assistance is necessary to strengthen CCDF as a two-generation program that supports work, training, and education, as well as access to high quality child care.
Congress reaffirmed the core belief that families receiving CCDF-funded child care should have equal access to child care that is comparable to that of non-CCDF families. The Act requires Lead Agencies to set provider payment rates based on a valid market rate survey or alternative methodology. To allow for equal access, we propose that Lead Agencies set base payment rates
In this NPRM, we provide detail on the statutory requirements for Lead Agencies to pay providers in a timely manner based on generally accepted payment practices for non-CCDF providers and that Lead Agencies delink provider payments from children's absences to the extent practicable. We establish a new Federal benchmark for affordable parent fees of 7 percent of family income and allow Lead Agencies more flexibility to waive co-payments for vulnerable families. We propose that Lead Agencies be permitted to increase parent fees only at redetermination or during a period of graduated phaseout when families' incomes have increased above the Lead Agency's initial income eligibility threshold, but seek comment around several elements of these policies.
This proposed rule would require Lead Agencies to take into consideration children's development and learning and promote continuity of care when authorizing child care services; offer increased flexibility for determining eligibility of vulnerable children; and clarify that Lead Agencies are not required to restrict a child's care to the hours of a parent's work or education. We believe these changes are important to make the program more child-focused and ensure that the most vulnerable children have access to and benefit from high quality care. These provisions may be implemented broadly in ways that best support the goals of Lead Agencies.
In this rule, we address the law's training requirements by proposing that child care caregivers, teachers, and directors of CCDF providers receive training prior to caring for children, or during an orientation period not to exceed three months, and on an annual basis. In order for the health and safety requirements to be implemented, and because these are areas that the Lead Agency will monitor, we propose that training include 10 basic health and safety topics identified in the Act, as well as recognizing and reporting child abuse and neglect in order to comply with child abuse reporting requirements.
Under the proposed regulation, Lead Agencies must provide for a progression of professional development for caregivers, teachers, and directors that may include postsecondary education. Through this NPRM, we propose definitions for six key components of a professional development framework and propose, to the extent practicable, that ongoing training yields continuing education units or is credit-bearing. These components advance expert recommendations to improve the knowledge and competencies of those who care for young children, which is central to children's learning experiences and the quality of child care.
In addition, the Act includes a number of provisions to improve access to high quality child care for children experiencing homelessness. The law requires Lead Agencies to establish a grace period that allows children experiencing homelessness (and children in foster care) to receive CCDF services while allowing their families (including foster families) a reasonable time to comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements. Through this NPRM, we propose to require Lead Agencies to help families comply with such requirements and coordinate with licensing agencies and other relevant State and local agencies to provide referrals and support to help families experiencing homelessness comply with immunization and health and safety requirements. The proposed rule would also require Lead Agencies to use the definition of homeless applicable to school programs from the McKinney-Vento Act to align with other Federal early childhood programs (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
The Act does not indicate the extent to which CCDF provisions apply to Tribes. Starting in early 2015, OCC began a series of formal consultations with Tribal leaders to determine how the provisions in the newly reauthorized child care law should apply to Tribes and Tribal organizations. We heard from many Tribal leaders and CCDF Administrators asking for flexibility to implement child care programs that meet the individual needs of their communities. The proposals included in this NPRM are intended to increase Tribal Lead Agency flexibility, in a manner consistent with the CCDF dual goals of promoting families' financial stability and fostering healthy child development. We are proposing to differentiate and exempt some Tribal grantees from a progressive series of CCDF provisions based on three categories of CCDF grant allocations: Large, medium and small. We are also allowing Tribes flexibility to consider any Indian child in the Tribe's service area to be eligible to receive CCDF funds, regardless of the family's income or work, education, or training status, if a Tribe's median income is below a threshold established by the Secretary.
The cost of implementing changes made by the Act and this proposed rule would vary depending on a State's specific situation. There are a significant number of States and Territories that have already implemented many of these policies. ACF conducted a regulatory impact analysis to estimate costs and benefits of provisions in the final rule taking into account current State practices. We evaluated major areas of policy change, including monitoring and inspections (including a hotline for parental complaints), background checks, training and professional development, consumer education (including Web site and consumer statement), quality spending, minimum 12-month eligibility and related provisions, increased subsidies, and supply building.
Based on our analysis, annualized costs associated with these provisions, averaged over a ten year window, are $256 million and the annualized amount of transfers is approximately $840 million (both estimated using a 3 percent discount rate), which amounts to a total annualized impact of $1.10 billion. Of that amount, $1.09 billion is directly attributable to the statute, with only an annualized cost of $1.6 million (or less than 1% of the total estimated impact) attributable to discretionary provisions of this proposed regulation. While this analysis does not attempt to fully quantify the many benefits of the reauthorization and this NPRM, we do conduct a breakeven analysis to compare requirements clarified through this regulation against a potential reduction in child fatalities and injuries. Further detail and explanation can be found in the regulatory impact analysis.
Nearly 13 million young children, under age 5, regularly rely on child care to support their healthy development
CCDF was created nearly 20 years ago, upon the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), in which Congress replaced the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children with the framework of TANF block grants, and established a new structure of consolidated funding for child care. This funding, provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618), combined with funding from the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C 9858
The CCDBG Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 13-186) was the first reauthorization of CCDBG since 1996. The reauthorized CCDBG affirms the importance of CCDF as a two-generation program that supports parents' financial success and children's healthy development. Since PRWORA, the focus of CCDF has shifted from one largely dedicated to the goal of enabling low-income parents to work to one that includes a focus on promoting positive child development as we have learned a great deal about the value of high quality child care for young children. While low-income parents continue to need access to child care in order to work and gain economic independence, policymakers and the public now recognize that the quality of child care arrangements is also critically important.
Fifteen years ago, HHS (in collaboration with other federal agencies and private partners) funded the National Academies of Sciences to evaluate and integrate the research on early childhood development and the role of early experiences. (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine,
Evidence continues to mount regarding the influence children's earliest experiences have on their later success and the role child care can play in shaping those experiences. The most recent findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) showed that the quality of child care children received in their preschool years had small but detectable associations with their academic success and behavior into adolescence. (NICHD,
Research also confirms that consistent time spent in afterschool activities during the elementary school years is linked to narrowing the gap in math achievement, greater gains in academic and behavioral outcomes, and reduced school absences. (Auger, Pierce, and Vandell,
CCDF often operates in conjunction with other programs including Head Start, Early Head Start, state pre-kindergarten, and before-and after-school programs. States and Territories have flexibility to use CCDF to provide children enrolled in these programs full-day, full-year care, which is essential to supporting low-income working parents. CCDF also funds quality improvements for settings beyond those that serve children receiving subsidies. CCDF has helped lay the groundwork for development of State early learning systems. Lead Agencies have used CCDF funds to make investments in professional development systems to
Child care is a core early learning and care program and plays an important role within a broad spectrum of early childhood programs supporting young children. The Administration has consistently sought to support State and Territory efforts to improve the coordination and alignment of early childhood programs through multiple efforts, including the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships. Most recently, ACF published
According to a recent report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors, investments in early childhood development will reap economic benefits now and in the future. Immediate benefits include increased parental earnings and employment; future benefits come when children who experience high quality early learning opportunities are prepared for success in school and go on to earn higher wages as adults. (Council of Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President of the United States,
ACF had previously issued an NPRM for CCDF in May 2013, prior to passage of the CCDBG Act of 2014 (78 FR 29442, May 20, 2013). While that NPRM has since been withdrawn (80 FR 25260, May 4, 2015), public comments received by ACF in 2013 have informed the development of content for this proposed rule. Where relevant, we refer to comments received in response to the 2013 CCDF NPRM in the preamble for this proposed rule.
The changes included in this proposed rule provide detail on major provisions of the CCDBG Act of 2014 to: (1) Protect the health and safety of children in child care; (2) help parents make informed consumer choices and access information to support child development; (3) provide equal access to stable, high quality child care for low-income children; and (4) enhance the quality of child care and the early childhood workforce.
First, Congress established minimum health and safety standards including mandatory criminal background checks, at least annual monitoring of providers, and health and safety training. Children in CCDF-funded child care will now be cared for by caregivers who have had basic training in health and safety practices and child development. Parents will know that individuals who care for their children do not have prior records of behavior that endanger their children. Health and safety is a
Second, Congress increased consumer education requirements for States and Territories and made clear that parents need transparent information about health and safety practices, monitoring results, and the quality of child care providers. Parents will now be able to easily view on a Web site the standards a child care provider meets and their record of compliance. Most States and Territories administering the CCDF program have already begun building QRIS, which make strategic investments to provide pathways for providers to reach higher quality standards. Our proposed rule builds on the reauthorization and Lead Agency efforts to inform parents about the quality of providers by proposing that the consumer education Web site include provider-specific quality information, if available, such as from a QRIS, and that Lead Agencies provide parents receiving CCDF with information about the quality of their chosen provider.
Third, parents need access to stable, high quality child care for low-income children and the law affirms that they should have equal access to settings that are comparable to those accessible to non-CCDF families. Through this proposed rule, we detail the law's continuity of care provisions, such as extending eligibility for child care for a minimum of 12 months regardless of a parent's temporary change in employment or participation in education or training. Continuity of services contributes to improved job stability and is important to a family's financial health. Family economic stability is undermined by policies that result in unnecessary disruptions to receipt of a subsidy due to administrative barriers or other processes that make it difficult for parents to maintain their eligibility and thus fully benefit from the support it offers. Continuity also is of vital importance to the healthy development of young children, particularly the most vulnerable. Disruptions in services can stunt or delay socio-emotional and cognitive development. Safe, stable environments allow young children the opportunity to develop the relationships and trust necessary to comfortably explore and learn from their surroundings. Research has demonstrated a relationship between child care stability and social competence, behavior outcomes, cognitive outcomes, language development, school adjustment, and overall child well-being. (Adams, Rohacek, and Danzinger,
Finally, this proposed rule addresses improvements in the new law, which would enhance the quality of child care and the early childhood workforce. States and Territories would need to report on their investments in quality activities, which will now be a greater share of CCDF spending. They will also expand quality investments in infant-toddler care. High quality care for children under age 3 is the most expensive and hardest care to find during the most formative years. The law requires States and Territories to have training and professional development standards in effect for CCDF caregivers, providers, and we propose building on this requirement by outlining the components of a professional development framework. Research shows the fundamental importance of the caregiver in a high quality early learning setting and this proposed rule would help ensure that early childhood professionals have access to the knowledge and skills they need to best support young children and their development.
Through our proposed changes, we have strengthened program integrity by proposing changes that address Lead Agencies' policies for internal controls, fiscal management, and processes for identifying fraud and improper payments. We have also clarified key eligibility and payment policies as they relate to improper payments.
In developing this proposed rule, we were mindful of CCDF's purpose to allow Lead Agencies maximum flexibility in developing child care policies and programs. In some areas, we have added flexibility in order to allow Lead Agencies to tailor policies that better meet the needs of the low-income families they serve. For example, we are providing more flexibility for Lead Agencies to determine when it is appropriate to waive a family's co-pay requirement. In many areas, we have proposed new requirements as dictated by the updated law or because they further advance the revised purposes of the CCDF program.
Changes in the law, and in this proposed rule, would impact the State, Territorial, and Tribal agencies that administer the CCDF program. The law requires changes across many areas: Child care licensing, subsidy, quality, workforce, and program integrity and requires coordination across State agencies. Achieving the full visions of reauthorization will be challenging, but this effort is necessary to improve child care in this country for the benefit of our children. ACF has and will continue to consult with State, Territorial, and Tribal agencies and provide technical assistance throughout implementation.
In this proposed rule, we have generally maintained the structure and organization of the current CCDF regulations. The preamble in this proposed rule discusses the changes to current regulations and contains certain clarifications based on ACF's experience in implementing the prior final rules. Where language of existing regulations remains unchanged, the preamble explanation and interpretation of that language published with all prior final rules also is retained, unless specifically modified in the preamble to this proposed rule. (
ACF expects provisions included in the Final Rule to become effective 60 days from the date of publication of the Final Rule, except for provisions with a later effective date as defined in the law (discussed further below). Compliance with provisions in the Final Rule would be determined through ACF review and approval of CCDF Plans, including State Plan amendments, as well as through the use of Federal monitoring, including on-site monitoring visits as necessary. ACF notes that Lead Agencies must comply with the provisions of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990, as revised by the CCDBG Act of 2014. Compliance with key statutorily required implementation
We recognize that, at the time of publication of this NPRM, States and Territories are preparing their FY 2016-2018 CCDF Plans, due March 1, 2016. States and Territories have been asked to comply with the law based on their reasonable interpretation of the requirements in the revised CCDBG statute. Once a final rule is issued, any State or Territory that does not fully meet the requirements of the regulations would need to revise its policies and procedures to come into compliance, and file appropriate Plan amendments related to those changes.
We recognize that some of the proposed changes in this NPRM may require action on the part of a State's legislature or require State-level rulemaking in order to implement. ACF welcomes public comment on specific provisions included in this proposed rule that may warrant a longer phase-in period and will take these comments into consideration when developing the Final Rule.
ACF has extended CCDF Tribal Plans for one year. Tribal Lead Agencies will submit new 3-year Plans for FY 2017-2019, with an effective date of October 1, 2016. ACF expects that all provisions related to Tribes included in the Final Rule would become effective 60 days from the date of publication of the Final Rule. Tribal Lead Agencies may also want to consider ACF's interpretation of the CCDBG Act included in this NPRM as they consider policy changes and prepare CCDF plans.
This proposed regulation is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9858
The CCDBG Act of 2014 amended and expanded the law's previous “goals” and renamed them “purposes”. We are proposing changes to regulatory language at 45 CFR 98.1 to describe the revised purposes of the CCDF program, according to the updated law.
The first part of the regulations at § 98.1(a) mirrors the statutory language describing the revised purposes of CCDF. Language revised by the new law is indicated in italics in this paragraph. The purposes of CCDF are now: (1) To allow each State maximum flexibility in developing child care programs and policies that best suit the needs of children and parents within
The second part at § 98.1(b) further defines the purposes of this proposed rule. We no longer refer to this section as the purposes of CCDF, as in the current regulations, so as not to create confusion with the purposes now established in law. We have retained much of the previous language in this paragraph but have made amendments and additions to reflect the priorities in this proposed rule of improving the health, safety, and quality of child care and supporting pathways to family economic stability. We have removed language that was included in the law's new purposes so as to avoid duplication. The new language shown in italics: (1) Maximize parental choice
We are proposing technical changes to definitions at § 98.2 and the addition of six new definitions. In this paragraph, italics indicate defined terms. First, we are proposing technical changes by deleting the definition for
Lead Agencies may continue to provide CCDF services for children in large family child care homes or group homes, and this is allowable and recognized by the revised definition of
These changes were proposed in the 2013 CCDF NPRM and received mostly supportive comments. Several commenters did not support the deletion of group home child care. One commenter said legislation would be required to remove group home day care from their State statute and would result in those providers being classified as child care centers leading to additional costs because of higher payment rates. Another commenter said elimination of group home care would impact the market rate for this category of care since the State surveys group home and family child care providers separately. We are clarifying that States and Territories would not be required to eliminate group homes from their categories of care or change the way they categorize providers for the purposes of analyzing or setting provider payment rates.
We are also proposing two additional changes to current definitions as called for by new statutory language. We are amending the definition of
Finally, we are proposing to add five new terms to the definitions due to statutory changes and to include terms commonly used in the child care profession. We propose defining
We also propose two new terms that reflect professional recognition for early childhood and school-age care teachers and the terms used in the field. We are defining
The proposed definitions for these terms are based on a white paper
Lead Agencies have considerable latitude in administering and implementing their child care programs. Subpart B of the regulations describes some of the basic responsibilities of a Lead Agency as defined in the statute. A Lead Agency serves as the single point of contact for all child care issues, determines the basic use of CCDF funds and priorities for spending CCDF funds, and promulgates the rules governing overall administration and oversight.
We are amending language at § 98.10 in accordance with new statutory language at Section 658D(a) that a Lead Agency may be a collaborative agency or a joint interagency office, as designated or established by the Governor of the State (or by the appropriate Tribal leader or applicant). Paragraphs (a) through (e) remain unchanged. We propose to add paragraph (f) to require that, at the option of an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization in the State, a Lead Agency should consult, collaborate and coordinate in the development of the State Plan with Tribes or Tribal organizations in the State in a timely manner pursuant to § 98.14. Because States also provide CCDF assistance to Indian children, States benefit by coordination with Tribes and we encourage States to be proactive in reaching out to the appropriate Tribal officials for collaboration. We've added “consult” to recognize the need for formal, structured consultation with Tribal governments, including Tribal leadership, and the fact that many States and Tribes have consultation policies and procedures in place.
We included this proposed provision in our 2013 NPRM and received a large number of comments from labor unions regarding this change, specifically when a sub-recipient of the Lead Agency establishes affiliation agreements with family child care networks to serve CCDF children. Unions commented that these requirements should apply in any and all instances where CCDF funds are sub-granted or passed through to an entity, including arrangements between intermediary entities and individual child care providers. Commenters believed this additional requirement would increase transparency and promote greater accountability.
We are clarifying that, as proposed, this provision applies only to written agreements between Lead Agencies and first-level sub-recipients (and not to agreements between first-level sub-recipients and their sub-recipients). The regulations state that the agreement “must specify the mutual roles and responsibilities of the Lead Agency and the other agencies”—indicating that the Lead Agency is a party to the agreement. This language is intended to be broad as sub-entities may fulfill any number of different roles or projects, including implementing quality improvement activities, determining eligibility for families, or providing consumer education on behalf of the Lead Agency. We strongly encourage all agreements between sub-recipients to have similar provisions, but prefer to leave this as an area of flexibility to give State and local agencies discretion over such details, given the wide-range of conditions and circumstances involved. Also, we note that regulations at § 98.67(c)(2) require Lead Agencies to have in place fiscal control and accounting procedures that permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the CCDF rules. Therefore, we would expect that when Lead Agencies devolve program administration to first, second, and third-level entities they necessarily must be concerned with the integrity and transparency of all written agreements involving CCDF funds.
We appreciate commenters on the 2013 NPRM bringing this issue to our attention. We are cognizant that some States and Territories lack strong requirements to ensure there is transparency in cases where a sub-recipient contracts with a network of family child care providers to serve children receiving CCDF. This proposed rule places a strong emphasis on implementation of provider-friendly payment practices, including proposing that there be a payment agreement or authorization of services for all payments received by child care providers. When a local entity is contracting with a family child care network for services, we agree that there should be a clear understanding from the outset regarding payment rates for providers, any fees the provider may be subject to, and payment policies.
Finally, in § 98.11(b)(5) we propose to add a reference to the HHS regulations requiring that Lead Agencies oversee the
Lead Agencies also are required to consult and coordinate services with agencies responsible for public health, public education, employment services/workforce development, and TANF. The CCDBG Act of 2014 added a requirement for the Lead Agency to develop the Plan in coordination with the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care authorized by the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831
We propose to amend § 98.14(a)(1) to add the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care or similar coordinating body, as well as additional new entities with which Lead Agencies would be required to coordinate the provision of child care services. We have added parenthetical language to paragraph (C) public education to specify that coordination with public education should also include agencies responsible for pre-kindergarten programs, if applicable, and educational services provided under Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400). Other proposed new coordinating entities include agencies responsible for child care licensing; Head Start collaboration; Statewide after-school network or other coordinating entity for out-of-school time care; emergency management and response; the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP); Medicaid; mental health services agencies; services for children experiencing homelessness, including State Coordinators for the Education of Children and Youth Experiencing Homelessness; and, to the extent practicable, local liaisons designated by local educational agencies (LEAs) in the State as required by the McKinney-Vento Act (42 U.S.C. 11432) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grantees.
Over time, the CCDF program has become an essential support in local communities to provide access to early care and education in before and after-school settings and to improve the quality of care. Many Lead Agencies already work collaboratively to develop a coordinated system of planning that includes a governance structure composed of representatives from the public and private sector, parents, schools, community-based organizations, child care, Head Start and Early Head Start, child welfare, family support, public health, and disability services. Local coordinating councils or advisory boards also often provide input and direction on CCDF-funded programs.
This type of coordination is frequently facilitated through entities such as State Advisory Councils on Early Childhood Education and Care. In both Head Start and CCDF, collaboration efforts extend to linking with other key services for young children and their families, such as medical, dental and mental health care; nutrition; services to children with disabilities; child support; refugee resettlement; adult education; family literacy; and employment training. These comprehensive services are crucial in helping families progress towards economic stability and in helping parents provide a better future for their young children.
Implementation of the requirements of the CCDBG Act of 2014 will require leadership and coordination between Lead Agencies and other child- and family-serving agencies, services, and supports at the State and local levels, including those identified above. For example, in many States, child care licensing is administered in a different agency than CCDF. In those States, implementation of the inspection and monitoring requirements included in the CCDBG Act necessitates coordination across agencies.
We proposed adding most of the above entities in the 2013 NPRM and received a large number of comments, nearly all supportive. Many commenters suggested including additional coordinating partners, such as child care resource and referral agencies, provider associations, maternal and child health home visiting programs, faith-based organizations, mental health services agencies, and Affordable Care Act health care outreach coordinators. With four exceptions, discussed below, we are declining to propose additional agencies as coordinating partners. We wanted to preserve State, Territory, and Tribal flexibility and keep requirements at this section manageable for Lead Agencies. This is not to devalue the importance of other coordinating partners suggested by commenters. Lead Agencies have the flexibility, and are encouraged, to engage a wide variety of cross-sector partners when developing the CCDF Plan. Some of the coordinating partners suggested by commenters, such as provider associations and faith-based organizations are already assumed to be included in existing regulations at § 98.14(a)(1), which requires coordination with child care and early childhood development programs.
In this proposed rule, we have included CACFP, which was not included in our list of proposed entities for coordination in the 2013 NPRM. CACFP is a Federal program that provides assistance to child care providers, including centers and family child care homes, for the provision of nutritious meals and snacks served to participants. A large number of public and private nonprofit child care centers, Head Start programs, before- and after-school programs, and other providers that are licensed or approved to provide child care services, including license-exempt CCDF providers, participate in CACFP. More than 3.3 million children receive nutritious meals and snacks each day as part of the child care they receive, and many children supported by CCDF subsidies attend child care programs that also participate in CACFP.
We are proposing to add CACFP because of its nutritional importance. In addition, we propose to include CACFP because some of the training and inspection requirements for child care providers participating in CACFP are similar to those that are now required for providers receiving CCDF funds. CACFP requires periodic unannounced site visits to prevent and identify management deficiencies, fraud, and abuse under the program, as well as to improve program operations. In order to maximize available resources, we are proposing to require coordination between the State/Territory CCDF Lead Agency and CACFP agency, if they are
The second entity included above that was not included in the 2013 NPRM is the State agency responsible for services for children experiencing homelessness. The CCDBG Act of 2014 added a number of provisions related to improving access to high quality child care for children experiencing homelessness and we believe that implementing these provisions will necessitate coordination with State agencies already overseeing services for this population.
Third, we also propose to require coordination with State mental health services agencies, which were not proposed for coordination in the 2013 NPRM. We are choosing to propose these partners because of the desire to encourage collaboration that will make comprehensive services available for children who require mental health services.
We also propose to include the State/Territory Medicaid agency, which was not included in our list of proposed entities for coordination in the 2013 NPRM. The reauthorized CCDBG requires Lead Agencies to provide information on resources and services for parents to access developmental screenings for their children, including through the coordinated use of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program, which would require coordination with the Medicaid agency.
Finally, existing regulation at § 98.14(a)(1)(B) requires Lead Agencies to coordinate the provision of services with employment services/workforce development. We propose to retain this requirement without change since this remains a critical area for coordination. Last year the President signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) into law, replacing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. WIOA authorizes and provides a strategic framework for Federal investments in: (1) Employment and training services for adults, dislocated workers, and youth and Wagner-Peyser employment services administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) through formula grants to States; (2) adult education and literacy programs and Vocational Rehabilitation State grant programs that assist individuals with disabilities in obtaining employment administered by the Department of Education (ED); and (3) other programs administered by DOL, ED, and HHS, including programs for specific vulnerable populations such as the Job Corps, YouthBuild, Indian and Native Americans, and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs. Because child care is an important support for families engaged in workforce training and development, we strongly encourage CCDF Lead Agencies to collaborate with WIOA implementation efforts as part of the requirement at § 98.14(a)(1)(B) to coordinate with employment services/workforce development.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section would remain unchanged.
We proposed this provision in the 2013 NPRM and received several comments requesting that Lead Agencies be required to make Plans and Plan amendments publicly available in multiple languages. We strongly encourage Lead Agencies to be mindful of the needs of families, caregivers, and providers with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities. States should continue to work with families and community groups to give them a voice in program planning and policymaking, for example, by organizing outreach meetings with competent interpreters, recruiting qualified sign language and multilingual eligibility staff, and providing accessible vital documents. Lead Agencies should provide notice of where persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities can obtain an interpretation or translation of key documents that are integral to service delivery, which may include CCDF Plans.
The Act requires Lead Agencies to provide assurances and certifications in its Plan. We are proposing to add new assurances based on new statutory language.
Lead Agencies are required to provide assurance that training and professional development requirements comply with § 98.44 and are applicable to caregivers, teachers, and directors working for child care providers receiving CCDF funds. They are also required to provide assurance that, to the extent practicable, enrollment and eligibility policies support the fixed costs of providing child care services by delinking provider payment rates from an eligible child's occasional absences in accordance with § 98.45(m). Both of these requirements are discussed in detail in later sections of this proposed rule.
Section 98.15(a)(9) adopts the statutory requirement for Lead Agencies to provide assurance that they will maintain or implement early learning and developmental guidelines that are developmentally appropriate for all children from birth to kindergarten entry, describing what children should know and be able to do, and covering the essential domains of early childhood development (cognition, including language arts and mathematics; social, emotional and physical development; and approaches toward learning) for use statewide by child care providers and caregivers. Guidelines should be research-based and developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate, building in a forward progression, and aligned with entry to kindergarten. Guidelines should be implemented in consultation with the State educational agency and the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care or similar coordinating body, and in consultation with child development and content experts.
Paragraph (a)(10) of § 98.15 details the new requirement that Lead Agencies provide assurance that funds received to carry out this subchapter will not be used to develop or implement an assessment for children that will be the primary or sole basis for a child care provider being determined to be ineligible to participate in the program carried out under this subchapter; will be used as the primary or sole basis to provide a reward or sanction for an individual provider; will be used as the primary or sole method for assessing program effectiveness; or will be used to deny children eligibility to participate in the program carried out under this subchapter. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, Public Law 113-235, made a correction to the CCDBG statute, adding that the assessments will not be the “primary or” sole basis for a child care provider being determined to be ineligible to participate in CCDF. The statute lays out the acceptable ways of using child assessments, including to support learning or improve a classroom environment; target professional development; determine the need for health, mental health, disability, developmental delay, or family support services; obtain information for the quality improvement process at the State/Territory level; or conduct a program evaluation for the purposes of providing program improvement and parent information.
Finally, § 98.15(a)(11) requires an assurance that any code or software for child care information systems or information technology that a Lead Agency, or other agency, expends CCDF funds to develop must be made available to other public agencies for their use in administering child care or related programs upon request. This provision is intended to prevent CCDF funds from being spent multiple times on the same, or similar, technology in order to provide accountability for public dollars.
Section 98.15(b) requires Lead Agencies to include certifications in its CCDF Plan. We are adding new requirements to reflect the following new statutory requirements:
• To develop the CCDF plan in consultation with the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (or similar coordinating body);
• to collect and disseminate to parents of eligible children, the general public,
• to make public the result of monitoring and inspections reports, as well as the number of deaths, serious injuries, and instances of substantiated child abuse that occurred in child care settings as required by § 98.33(a);
• to require caregivers, teachers, and directors of child care providers to comply with the State's, Territory's or Tribe's procedures for reporting child abuse and neglect as required by section 106(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(i)), or other child abuse reporting procedures and laws in the service area, as required by § 98.41(e);
• to have in effect monitoring policies and practices pursuant to § 98.42; and
• to ensure payment practices of child care providers receiving CCDF funds reflect generally accepted payment practices of child care providers that serve children who do not receive CCDF assistance, pursuant to § 98.45(m).
These requirements are discussed later in this proposed rule. We are also removing “or area served by Tribal Lead Agency” from § 98.15(b)(6), as redesignated, because we are proposing distinct requirements for Tribes to enforce health and safety standards for child care providers. At § 98.15(b)(12), as redesignated, we are updating the reference to § 98.43, which is now § 98.45. All other paragraphs in this section remain unchanged.
Through proposed regulatory language, we would require that Lead Agencies have in place policies to govern the use and disclosure of confidential and personally-identifiable information (PII) about children and families receiving CCDF-funded assistance and child care providers, which should include their staff, receiving CCDF funds. We propose to offer Lead Agencies discretion to determine the specifics of such privacy policies because we recognize many Lead Agencies already have policies in place and it is not our intention to make them revise such policies, as long as the policy is in accordance with existing Federal confidentiality requirements. Further, many Lead Agencies are working on data sharing across Federal and State programs and it is not our intention to make these efforts more challenging by introducing a new set of confidentiality requirements. This regulatory addition is not intended to preclude the sharing of individual, case-level data among Federal and State programs that can improve the delivery of services. The ACF
It is important that personal information not be used for purposes outside of the administration or enforcement of CCDF, or other Federal, State or local programs, and that when information is shared with outside entities (such as academic institutions for the purpose of research) there are safeguards in place to ensure for the non-disclosure of Personally-Identifiable Information, which is information that can be used to link to, or identify, a specific individual. It is at the Lead Agency's discretion whether they choose to comply with this proposed provision by writing and implementing CCDF-specific confidentiality rules or by ensuring that CCDF data is subject to existing Federal or State confidentiality rules. Further, nothing in this provision should preclude a Lead Agency from making publicly available provider-specific information on the level of quality of a provider or the results of monitoring or inspections as described in § 98.33.
Submission and approval of the CCDF Plan is the primary mechanism by which ACF works with Lead Agencies to ensure program implementation meets Federal regulatory requirements. All provisions that are required to be included in the CCDF Plan are outlined in § 98.16. Many of the additions to this section correspond to proposed changes throughout the regulations, which we provide explanation for later in this proposed rule. Paragraph (a) of § 98.16 would continue to require that the Plan specify the Lead Agency.
Under this proposed change, the Lead Agency would be required to provide a description that identifies any shortages in the supply of high quality child care for specific localities and populations, includes the data sources used to identify shortages, and explains how grants or contracts for direct services will be used to address such shortages. To identify supply shortages, the Lead Agency may analyze available data from market rate surveys, child care resource and referral agencies, and other sources. ACF recommends that the Lead Agency examine all localities in its jurisdiction, recognizing that each local child care market has unique characteristics—for example, many rural areas face supply shortages. The Lead Agency also should consider the supply of child care for
We propose adding three new paragraphs, (m) through (o), requiring Lead Agencies to describe the child care standards for child care providers receiving CCDF funds, that includes group size limits, child-staff ratios, and required qualifications for caregivers, teachers, and directors, in accordance with § 98.41(d); monitoring and other enforcement procedures to ensure that child care providers comply with applicable health and safety requirements pursuant to § 98.42; and criminal background check requirements, policies, and procedures, including the process in place to respond to other States', Territories', and Tribes' requests for background check results in order to accommodate the 45 day timeframe, in accordance with § 98.43.
We revise paragraph (s), as redesignated, to include a detailed description of the State's hotline for complaints. This provision is described later in the proposed rule. Paragraph (t), as redesignated (previously paragraph (n)), remains unchanged.
We revise § 98.16(u), as redesignated (previously paragraph (o)), to include in the description of the licensing requirements, any exemption to licensing requirements that is applicable to child care providers receiving CCDF funds; a demonstration of why this exemption does not endanger the health, safety, or development of children; and a description of how the licensing requirements are effectively enforced, pursuant to § 98.42.
Pursuant to § 98.50 as proposed, Lead Agencies would be required to use CCDF funds for some direct contracts or grants for child care services. For contracts to be effective at increasing the supply of high quality care, contracts should be funded at levels that are sufficient to meet any higher quality standards associated with that care. Along with increased rates and contracts, we encourage Lead Agencies to consider other strategies, including training and technical assistance to child care providers to increase quality for these types of care.
We add § 98.16(y) requiring Lead Agencies to describe how they prioritize increasing access to high quality child care and development services for children of families in areas that have significant concentrations of poverty and unemployment and that do not have sufficient numbers of such programs, pursuant to § 98.46(b). This provision is discussed later in this proposed rule.
Finally, we propose to add § 98.16(z) reiterating the statutory requirement for Lead Agencies to describe how they develop and implement strategies to strengthen the business practices of child care providers to expand the supply, and improve the quality of, child care services. Some child care providers need support on business and management practices in order to run their child care businesses more effectively and devote more time and attention to quality improvements. Improved business practices can benefit caregivers and children. An example of a key business practice is providing paid sick leave for caregivers to keep children healthy. Without paid time off, caregivers may come to work sick and risk spreading illnesses to children in care. We also encourage child care providers to provide paid sick leave because it promotes better health for child care employees, which is important to maintaining a stable workforce as well as consistency of care for children. According to The Council of Economic Advisors, “[Pa]id sick leave also induces a healthier work environment by encouraging workers to stay home when they are sick.” (The Economics of Paid and Unpaid Leave, The Council of Economic Advisors, June 2014.)
This provision largely reflects statutory language of Section 658E(c)(2)(U), but we have clarified that the Plan must apply, at a minimum, to CCDF providers and may apply to other providers (such as all licensed providers) at the Lead Agency option. We also added language on post-disaster recovery.
In past disasters, the provision of emergency child care services and rebuilding and restoring of child care facilities and infrastructure emerged as an essential service. The importance of the need to improve emergency preparedness and response in child care was highlighted in an October 2010 report released by the National Commission on Children and Disasters. The Commission's report included two primary sets of recommendations for child care: (1) To improve disaster preparedness capabilities for child care; and (2) to improve capacity to provide child care services in the immediate aftermath and recovery from a disaster (
Maintaining the safety of children in child care programs during and after disaster or emergency situations necessitates planning in advance by State/Territory agencies and child care providers. The reauthorization of the CCDBG Act, and this proposed rule, implement the key recommendation of the National Commission on Children and Disasters by requiring a child care-specific Statewide Disaster Plan. ACF has previously issued guidance (CCDF-ACF-IM-2011-01) recommending that Disaster Plans include five key components: (1) Planning for continuation of services to CCDF families; (2) coordinating with emergency management agencies and key partners; (3) regulatory requirements and technical assistance for child care providers; (4) provision of temporary child care services after a disaster, and (5) rebuilding child care after a disaster. The guidance recommends that disaster plans for child care incorporate capabilities for shelter-in-place, evacuation and relocation, communication and reunification with families, staff training, continuity of operations, accommodation of children with disabilities and chronic health needs, and practice drills. ACF intends to provide updated guidance and TA to States, Territories, and Tribes as they move forward with implementing Disaster Plans as required by the reauthorization.
Finally, we have redesignated paragraph (v) as paragraph (ii) with no other changes.
This section of the regulations describes processes and timelines for CCDF Plan approvals and disapprovals, as well as submission of Plan amendments. CCDF Plans are submitted triennially and prospectively describe how the Lead Agency will implement the program. To make a substantive change to a CCDF program after the Plan has been approved, a Lead Agency must submit a Plan amendment to ACF for approval.
We would not require the Lead Agency to hold a formal public hearing or solicit comments on each Plan amendment, as is required by current regulations at § 98.14(c) for the submission of the CCDF Plan. However, we encourage solicitation of public input whenever possible and consider this proposed regulatory change to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the CCDF Plan public hearing provision. Paragraph (c) of § 98.18 describing appeal and disapproval of a Plan or Plan amendment would remain unchanged.
Section 658I(c) of the CCDBG Act indicates that Lead Agencies are allowed to submit a request to the Secretary to waive one or more requirements contained in the CCDBG Act to ensure that effective delivery of services are not interrupted by conflicting or duplicative requirements, to allow for a period of time for a State legislature to enact legislation to implement the provisions of the Act or this part, or in response to extraordinary circumstances, such as a natural disaster or financial crisis. We are proposing to extend the waiver option to rules under this part as well. Prior to the enactment of the CCDBG Act in 2014, there was no waiver authority within the CCDF program.
We propose new § 98.19, Requests for Temporary Relief from Requirements, to provide guidance and clarity on: The eligibility of States, Territories, and Tribes to request a waiver; what provisions would not be eligible for waivers; and how the waiver request and approval (or disapproval) process would work. In addition to outlining the requirements detailed in the CCDBG Act of 2014, § 98.19 includes clarifying provisions to provide greater understanding of the intent and implementation of the waiver process.
This section details the process by which the Secretary may waive one or more of the requirements contained in the Act or this part, with the exception of State Match and Maintenance of Effort requirements, consistent with the requirements described in section 658I(c)(1) of the Act. In order for a waiver application to be considered, the waiver request must: Describe circumstances that prevent the State, Territory, or Tribe from complying with any statutory or regulatory requirements of this part; demonstrate that the waiver, by itself, contributes to or enhances the State's, Territory's, or Tribe's ability to carry out the purposes of this part; show that the waiver will not contribute to inconsistency with the objectives of this law; and meet the additional requirements in this section as described.
We propose to include a delineation of the types of waivers that States, Territories, and Tribes can request into two distinct types: (1) Transitional and legislative waivers and (2) waivers for extraordinary circumstances. States, Territories, and Tribes may apply for temporary transitional and legislative waivers meeting the requirements described in this section that would provide temporary relief from conflicting or duplicative requirements preventing implementation, or for a temporary extension in order for a State, Territorial, or Tribal legislature to enact legislation to implement the provisions of this subchapter.
Transitional and legislative waivers are designed to provide States, Territories, and Tribes at most one full legislative session to enact legislation to implement the provisions of the Act or this part, and are limited to a one-year initial period and at most, an additional one-time, one-year renewal from the date of approval of the extension (which may be appropriate for a State with a two-year legislative cycle, for example).
Waivers for extraordinary circumstances would address temporary circumstances or situations, such as a natural disaster or financial crisis. Extraordinary circumstance waivers are limited to an initial period of no more than two years from the date of approval, and at most, an additional one-year renewal from the date of approval of the extension.
Both types of waivers are probationary, subject to the decision of the Secretary to terminate a waiver at any time if the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the performance of a State, Territory, or Tribe granted relief under this subsection has been inadequate, or if such relief is no longer necessary to achieve its original purposes.
In order to request a waiver, the Lead Agency must submit a written request, indicating which type of waiver the State, Territory, or Tribe is requesting and why. The request must also provide detail on which provision(s) the State, Territory, or Tribe is seeking relief from and how relief from that sanction or provision, by itself, will improve delivery of child care services for children and families. If a transitional waiver, the Lead Agency should describe the steps being taken to address the barrier to implementation (
Within 90 days of submission of the request, the Secretary would notify the State, Territory, or Tribe of the approval or disapproval. If rejected, the Secretary
No later than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the waiver, a State, Territory, or Tribe, at its option, may make a formal written request to re-certify the provisions described in this section, which must explain the necessity of additional time for relief from such sanction(s) or provisions. The Secretary may approve or disapprove a request from a State, Territory, or Tribe for a one-time renewal of an existing waiver under this part for a period no longer than one year. The Secretary would adhere to the same approval or disapproval process for the renewal request as the initial request.
The goal of all the proposed inclusions at § 98.19 is to make continuity of the effective delivery of child care services a priority throughout the implementation process or in times of extraordinary circumstances. We are seeking comment on ways to ensure efficient and timely relief, when appropriate, for States, Territories, and Tribes impacted by extraordinary circumstances, such as natural disasters. Therefore, we ask for feedback about making the application process for waivers for extraordinary circumstances straightforward to provide States, Territories, and Tribes with minimal obstacles while they are likely in the preparedness, response, and recovery stages of handling the circumstances that prompted the initial request.
This subpart establishes parameters for a child's eligibility for CCDF assistance and for Lead Agencies' eligibility and redetermination procedures. Congress made significant changes to CCDBG that emphasize stable financial assistance and continuity of care through CCDF eligibility policies, including establishing minimum 12-month eligibility for all children. In this subpart, we propose to restate these changes in regulation and provide additional clarification where appropriate.
Tribes are already allowed to use Tribal median income (TMI) (pursuant to § 98.81(b)(1)) and this would continue to be allowable under this proposed rule. ACF also recognizes that some Lead Agencies establish eligibility thresholds that vary by geographic area and that some Lead Agencies use Area median income (AMI) to calculate income eligibility for different regions in order to account for cost of living variations across geographic areas. Lead Agencies may use AMI in their calculations, but must also report the threshold in terms of SMI in their Plan, and ensure that thresholds based on AMI are at or below 85 percent of SMI.
Similarly, we propose to remove the requirement that case-by-case determinations of income and co-payment fees for this eligibility category must be made by, or in consultation with, a child protective services (CPS) worker. While consulting with a CPS worker would no longer be a requirement, it would not be prohibited; a Lead Agency may consult with or involve a CPS caseworker as appropriate. We encourage collaboration with the agency responsible for children in protective services, especially when a child also is receiving CCDF assistance.
These changes would provide Lead Agencies with additional flexibility to offer services to those who have the greatest need, including high-risk populations, and reduce the burden associated with eligibility determination for vulnerable families.
Under current regulations at § 98.20(a)(3)(ii)(B), at the option of the Lead Agency, this category may include children in foster care. The regulations allow that children deemed eligible based on protective services may reside with a guardian or other person standing “in loco parentis” and that person is not required to be working or attending job training or education activities in order for the child to be eligible. In addition, the existing regulations allow grantees to waive income eligibility and co-payment requirements as determined necessary on a case-by-case basis, by, or in consultation with, an appropriate protective services worker for children in this eligibility category. This proposed change would clarify, for example, that a family living in a homeless shelter may not meet certain eligibility requirements (
This change was also included in the 2013 NPRM and received broad support in public comments. One commenter wrote this change “recognizes the particular challenges and barriers to assistance that these children [from other vulnerable populations] face and the importance of stable, supportive child care.” Several commenters requested that the term “vulnerable populations” be defined at the Federal level and suggested several specific populations to be included in the definition—such as teen parents, the children of parents or guardians with disabilities who are unable to work, children with disabilities who have Individual Family Service Plans (IFSPs) or Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and children who are experiencing homelessness. While we encourage Lead Agencies to consider these vulnerable populations in their definitions and policies, we are declining to specifically define “vulnerable populations” in this proposed rule in order to allow Lead Agencies the flexibility to define the term in a way that is most responsive to the particular needs of their communities.
We note that this new provision would not require Lead Agencies to expand their definition of protective services. It merely provides the option to include other high-needs populations in the protective services category solely for purposes of CCDF, as many Lead Agencies already choose to do.
We propose to add paragraph (c) clarifying that only the citizenship and immigration status of the child, the primary beneficiary of CCDF, is relevant for the purposes of determining eligibility under PRWORA and that a Lead Agency, or other administering agency, may not condition eligibility based upon the citizenship or immigration status of the child's parent. Under title IV of PRWORA, CCDF is considered a program providing Federal public benefits and thus is subject to requirements to verify citizenship and immigration status of beneficiaries. In 1998, ACF issued a Program Instruction (ACYF-PI-CC-98-08) which established that “only the citizenship status of the child, who is the primary beneficiary of the child care benefit, is relevant for eligibility purposes.” This proposal codifies this policy in regulation and clarifies that Lead Agencies are prohibited from considering the parent's citizenship and immigration status.
ACF has previously clarified that when a child receives Early Head Start or Head Start services that are supported by CCDF funds and subject to the Head Start Performance Standards, the PRWORA verification requirements do not apply. Verification requirements also do not apply to child care settings that are subject to public educational standards. These policies remain in effect. (ACYF-PI-CC-98-09)
We propose to add a new section at § 98.21 to address the processes by which Lead Agencies determine and redetermine a child's eligibility for services.
These requirements apply to both the initial eligibility period and any subsequent eligibility periods. Under the law, other than income exceeding 85 percent of SMI (unless the increase in income is considered temporary, pursuant with the irregular fluctuations in earning requirement discussed below), a family is considered to meet eligibility criteria for the entire 12-month period, though the Lead Agency has the option of also considering a status change due to non-temporary
As the statutory language states that a child determined eligible will not only be considered to meet all eligibility requirements, but also “will receive such assistance,” Lead Agencies may not offer authorization periods shorter than 12 months as that would functionally undermine the statutory intent that, barring limited circumstances, eligible children shall receive a minimum of 12 months of CCDF assistance. We note that, despite the language that the child “will receive such assistance,” the receipt of such services remains at the option of the family. The law does not require the family to continue receiving services nor would it force the family to remain with a provider if the family no longer chooses to receive such services.
We propose to define “temporary change” in the rule at § 98.21(a)(1)(ii) to include, at a minimum: (1) Any time-limited absence from work for employed parents for periods of family leave (including parental leave) or sick leave; (2) any interruption in work for a seasonal worker who is not working between regular industry work seasons; (3) any student holiday or break for a parent participating in training or education; (4) any reduction in work, training or education hours, as long as the parent is still working or attending training or education; and (5) any cessation of work or attendance at a training or education program that does not exceed three months or a longer period of time established by the Lead Agency.
The above circumstances represent temporary changes to the parents' schedule or conditions of employment, but do not constitute permanent changes to the parents' status as being employed or attending a job training or educational program. This definition is in line with Congressional intent to stabilize assistance for working families. Lead Agencies must consider all changes on this list to be temporary, but should not be limited by this definition and may consider additional changes to be temporary.
At § 98.21(a)(1)(ii)(F), we clarify that a child should retain eligibility despite any change in age, including turning 13 years old during the eligibility period. This is consistent with the statutory requirement that a child shall be “considered to meet all eligibility requirements” until the next redetermination. This allows Lead Agencies to avoid terminating access to CCDF assistance immediately upon a child's 13th birthday in a manner that may be detrimental to positive youth development and academic success or that might abruptly put the child at-risk if a parent cannot be with the child before or after school.
At § 98.21(a)(1)(ii)(G), we propose that a child retain eligibility despite “any change in residency within the State, Territory, or Tribal service area.” This would provide stability for families who, under current practice, may lose child care assistance despite maintaining their State, Territory or Tribal residency. This may require coordination between localities within States, Territories, or Tribes or necessitate some Lead Agencies to change practices for allocating funding. We believe this level of coordination is essential, as the State, Territory, or Tribe is the entity responsible for CCDF assistance.
Nothing in this rule prohibits Lead Agencies from establishing eligibility periods longer than 12 months or lengthening eligibility periods prior to a redetermination. We encourage (but do not require) Lead Agencies to consider how they can use this flexibility to align CCDF eligibility policies with other programs serving low-income families, including Head Start, Early Head Start, Medicaid, or SNAP. For example, once determined eligible, children in Head Start remain eligible until the end of the succeeding program year. Children in Early Head Start are considered eligible throughout the course of the program. Consistent with existing ACF guidance (ACYF-PIQ-CC-99-02) a Lead Agency could establish eligibility periods longer than 12 months for children enrolled in Head Start and receiving CCDF in order to align eligibility periods between programs. Similarly, a Lead Agency could establish longer eligibility periods during an infant or toddler's enrollment in Early Head Start or in other collaborative models, such as Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships.
Operationalizing alignment across programs can be challenging, particularly if families enroll in programs at different times. While the Lead Agency must ensure that eligibility is not redetermined prior to 12 months, it could align with other benefit programs by “resetting the clock” on the eligibility period to extend the child's CCDF eligibility by starting a new 12-month period if the Lead Agency receives information, such as information pursuant to eligibility determinations or recertifications in other programs, that confirms the child's eligibility and current co-payment rate. Alignment promotes conformity across Federal programs, such as SNAP, and can simplify eligibility and reporting processes for families and administering agencies. However, it should be noted that a Lead Agency cannot terminate assistance for a child prior to the end of the minimum 12-month period if the recertification process of another program reveals a change in the family's circumstances, unless those changes impact CCDF eligibility (
It is important to note that the Act allows Lead Agencies to continue child care assistance for the full 12-month eligibility period even if the parent experiences a non-temporary job loss or cessation of education or training. The default policy is that a child remains eligible for the full minimum 12-month eligibility period, but the Lead Agency has the option to terminate assistance under these particular conditions. A Lead Agency may choose not to terminate assistance for any families prior to a redetermination at 12 months. If a Lead Agency chooses to terminate assistance under these conditions, it has the option of doing so for all CCDF families or for only a subset of CCDF families. For example, a Lead Agency could choose to allow priority families (
While the Lead Agency must provide continued assistance for at least three months, there is no requirement to document that the parent is engaged in a job search or other activity related to resuming attendance in an education or training program during that time. In fact, we strongly discourage such policies as they would be an additional burden on families and be inconsistent with the purposes of CCDF and this proposed rule.
If a Lead Agency does choose to terminate assistance under these circumstances, it should allow families that have been terminated to reapply as soon as they are eligible again instead of making the family wait until their original eligibility period would have ended in order to reapply.
A policy that provides continuous eligibility, regardless of non-temporary changes, would reduce the burden on families and the administrative burden on Lead Agencies by minimizing reporting and the frequency of eligibility adjustments. Retention of eligibility during periods of family instability (such as losing a job) can alleviate some of the stress on families, facilitate a smoother transition back into the workforce, and support children's development by maintaining continuity in their child care. Moreover, studies show that the same families that leave CCDF often return to the program after short periods of ineligibility. A report published by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at HHS,
Lead Agencies considering the option to terminate assistance in response to “non-temporary” changes are encouraged to use administrative data to understand the extent to which CCDF families currently cycle on and off the program, to make a determination as to whether it is in the interest of anyone (child, parent, or agency) to terminate assistance for families who may ultimately return to the program.
We understand that some Lead Agencies include in their definition of allowable work activities a period of job search and allow children to qualify for CCDF assistance based on their parent(s) seeking employment. It is not our intention to discourage Lead Agencies from allowing job search activities as qualifying work. We believe that it is in line with the intent of the statute to allow Lead Agencies the option to end assistance prior to a redetermination if the parent(s) has not secured employment or educational or job training activities, as long as assistance has been provided for no less than three months. In other words, if a child qualifies for child care assistance based on a parent's job search, the Lead Agency has the option to end assistance after a minimum of three months if the parent has still has not found employment. Lead Agencies could choose, however, to provide additional months of job search to families as well or to continue assistance for the full minimum 12-month eligibility period.
We are soliciting comment on whether there are any additional circumstances other than those discussed above under which a Lead Agency should be allowed to end a child's assistance (after providing three months of continued assistance) prior to the minimum 12-month period. Commenters should remember that since these regulations must comply with statutory requirements, any suggestions must remain within the bounds of the CCDBG Act in order to be considered.
Based on feedback from States and various stakeholders, ACF has already considered possible exceptions to the minimum 12-month eligibility period for certain populations, such as children in families receiving TANF and children in protective services, but has decided that such special considerations would be in conflict with the CCDBG Act, which clearly provides 12-month eligibility for all children.
In addition, we propose requiring the Lead Agency to allow families the option to report changes, particularly because we want to permit families to report those changes that could be beneficial to the family's co-payment or subsidy level. The Lead Agency must act upon such reported changes if doing so would reduce the family's co-payment or increase the subsidy. The Lead Agency would be prohibited from acting on the family's self-reported changes if it would reduce the family's benefit, such as increasing the co-payment or decreasing the subsidy.
We believe that the limitation on raising copayments, by protecting the child's benefit level for the minimum 12 month eligibility period, is consistent with the statutory requirement at 658E(c)(2)(N) that once deemed eligible, a child shall “receive such assistance, for not less than 12 months.” Raising co-payments earlier that the 12 month period could potentially destabilize the child's access to assistance and has the unintended consequence of forcing working parents to choose between advancing in the workplace and child care assistance. This is discussed further below in the section on reporting changes in circumstances.
Lead Agencies retain the authority to establish their initial income eligibility threshold at or below 85 percent of SMI. This rule proposes to give Lead Agencies the option to decide between allowing children, who are otherwise eligible, to stay on CCDF until their income exceeds 85 percent of SMI for a family of the same size or to adopt this approach for at least one additional year. This provision promotes continuity of care and is consistent with the statutory requirement that families retain child care assistance during an eligibility period as their income increases as long as it remains at or below 85 percent of SMI. We are seeking comments on the anticipated impacts of the proposed graduated phaseout provision, including suggestions for possible alternative approaches to consider that would also promote continuity of care for children and family financial stability.
Pursuant to § 98.21(a)(3) as proposed, Lead Agencies are prohibited from increasing family copayments within the minimum 12-month eligibility period. We propose, in paragraph (b)(2), that Lead Agencies be permitted to adjust family co-payment amounts during the proposed graduated phaseout period to help families transition off of child care assistance. ACF encourages Lead Agencies to ensure that copayment increases are gradual in proportion to a family's income growth and do not constitute too high a cost burden for families so as to ensure stability as family income increases.
Income eligibility policies play an important role in promoting pathways to financial stability for families. Currently, 16 Lead Agencies use two-tiered income eligibility. However, even with higher exit-level eligibility thresholds in these States/Territories, a small increase in earnings may result in families becoming ineligible for assistance before they are able to afford the full cost of care. An unintended consequence of low eligibility thresholds is that low income parents may pass up raises or job advancement in order to retain their subsidy, which undermines a key goal of CCDF to help parents achieve independence from public assistance. As proposed, this rule would allow low-income families to continue child care assistance as their income grows to 85 percent of State median income in order to support financial stability.
Lead Agencies retain broad flexibility to set their policies and procedures for income calculation and verification. We propose, as examples, several approaches Lead Agencies may take to account for irregular fluctuations in earnings. Lead Agencies may average family earnings over a period of time (
To meet this provision, Lead Agencies could offer a variety of family-friendly mechanisms through which parents could submit required documentation (
In general, ACF strongly encourages Lead Agencies to adopt reasonable policies for establishing a family's eligibility that minimize burdens on families. Given the new eligibility provisions established by reauthorization, Lead Agencies are encouraged to re-evaluate processes for verifying and tracking eligibility to simplify eligibility procedures and reduce duplicative requirements across programs. Simplifying and streamlining eligibility processes along with other proposed changes in the subpart may require significant change within the CCDF program. Lead Agencies should provide appropriate training and guidance to ensure that caseworkers and other relevant child care staff (including those working for designated entities) clearly understand new policies and are implementing them correctly.
Additionally, there are challenges associated with interim monitoring and reporting, including costs to families trying to balance work or education and family obligations and costs to Lead Agencies administering the program. Overly burdensome reporting requirements can also result in increased procedural errors, as even parents who remain eligible may face difficulties complying with onerous reporting rules.
Lead Agencies should significantly reduce change reporting requirements for families within the eligibility period, and limit the reporting requirements to changes that impact CCDF eligibility. Under this proposed rule, a Lead Agency would be required to specify in its Plan any requirements for families to notify the Lead Agency (or its designee)
Under paragraph (e)(1), the Lead Agency must require families to report a change at any point during the minimum 12-month period only in circumstances where the family's income exceeds 85% of SMI, taking into account irregular income fluctuations. At the option of the Lead Agency, the Lead Agency may require families to report changes where the family has experienced a non-temporary cessation of work, training, or education.
In paragraph (e)(2), we specify that any notification requirements shall not constitute an undue burden on families and propose that compliance with requirements must include a range of notification options (
We also propose limiting notification requirements only to items that impact a family's eligibility (
In paragraph (e)(4), we propose requiring Lead Agencies to allow families the option of reporting of information on an ongoing basis, particularly to allow families to report information that would be beneficial to their assistance (such as an increase in work hours that necessitates additional child care hours or a loss of earnings that could result in a reduction of the family copayment). While we encourage limiting reporting requirements for families, it was not our intent to limit the family's ability to report changes in circumstances, particularly in cases where they may have entered into more stressful or vulnerable situations or would be eligible for additional child care assistance.
Moreover, as proposed in § 98.21(e)(4), if a family reports changes on an ongoing basis to the Lead Agency that do not make the family ineligible, the Lead Agency must act on these provisions if it would increase the family's benefit, but cannot act on any information that would reduce the family's benefit. All of the above provisions would apply to any entities that perform eligibility functions in the CCDF program on the Lead Agency's behalf.
Finally, some Lead Agencies currently use electronic data from other State/Territory and Federal databases to verify or monitor CCDF eligibility. Lead Agencies may continue this practice, which is particularly useful in reducing the burden on families at the time of initial determination or redetermination. However, Lead Agencies should ensure any such data that is acted upon during the minimum 12-month eligibility period conform to the above requirements for change reporting and all CCDF rules.
We recognize that some States currently send interim reporting forms to families during the eligibility period to request that families verify or update information. Some States use such interim reporting to align with processes in other programs, such as semi-annual SNAP simplified change reporting. We believe that such periodic reporting forms are contrary to the spirit of the law, which provides for minimum 12-month eligibility between redeterminations. We ask for comments on whether States should have the option for 6-month interim reporting forms for CCDF, and if such reports are allowed, the best way to structure them so as to promote continuity of services for the minimum 12-month eligibility period for eligible families, consistent with the law. We also ask for comment on whether States should be able to adjust co-payments or otherwise act on verified information (
In order to remain consistent with the requirements in this subpart, we are proposing to add § 98.21(a)(4) to affirmatively state that because a child meeting eligibility requirements at the most recent eligibility determination or redetermination is considered eligible between redeterminations as described in paragraph (a)(1), any payment for such a child shall not be considered an error or improper payment under subpart K due to the family's circumstances. This clarifies that compliance with the policies in this Subpart do not constitute an error and Lead Agencies will not be held accountable for payments within these parameters.
When implementing their CCDF programs, Lead Agencies must balance ensuring compliance with eligibility requirements with other considerations, including administrative feasibility, program integrity, promoting continuity of care for children, and aligning child care with Head Start, Early Head Start, and other early childhood programs. These proposed changes are intended to remove any uncertainty regarding applicability of Federal eligibility requirements for CCDF and the threat of potential penalties or disallowances that otherwise may inhibit a Lead Agencies' ability to balance these priorities in a way that best meets the needs of children.
Some Lead Agencies currently use “look back” and recoupment policies as part of eligibility redeterminations. These review a family's eligibility for the prior eligibility period to see if the family was ineligible during any portion of that time and recoup benefits for any period where the family had been ineligible. ACF would like to clarify that there is no Federal requirement for Lead Agencies to recoup CCDF overpayments, except in instances of fraud. We also strongly discourage such policies as they may impose a financial burden on low-income families that is counter to CCDF's long-term goal of promoting family economic stability. The Act affirmatively states an eligible child “will be considered to meet all eligibility requirements” for a minimum of 12 months regardless of increases in income (as long as income remains at or below 85 percent of SMI) or temporary changes in parental employment or participation in education and training. Therefore, there are very limited circumstances in which a child would
Existing regulations at § 98.60 indicate that Lead Agencies shall recover child care payments that are the result of fraud from the responsible party. While ACF does not define the term fraud and leaves flexibility to Lead Agencies, fraud in this context typically involves knowing and willful misrepresentation of information to receive a benefit. We urge Lead Agencies to carefully consider what constitutes fraud, particularly in the case of individual families.
The intent of this provision is that the Lead Agency has some mechanism in place to consider the child's development and learning, but a Lead Agency has broad flexibility to determine how this is done. At a minimum, we would expect Lead Agencies to collect sufficient information during the CCDF intake process in order to make necessary referrals for services. For example, a Lead Agency could make sure there is an automatic referral of eligible children to Early Head Start or Head Start. A Lead Agency could include in their eligibility determination process a question about whether or not the child has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP), so that the parent could be provided with information on providers that are equipped to provide services that meet the child's individual needs.
ACF encourages Lead Agencies to engage in public-private partnerships so that responsibility for implementing this provision does not fall solely on CCDF eligibility workers. Partnerships with child care resource and referral agencies, early intervention agencies, and others may mean that a few well-chosen questions during the intake process can prompt the eligibility worker (or automated system if the process is online) to direct the family to appropriate resources. This proposed requirement does not require a developmental screening of every child as part of the eligibility process; however, child care agencies should partner to ensure that children in the CCDF subsidy system can access appropriate screening and follow-up.
We recognize that given constraints on funding, limited human resource capacity, and the inadequate supply of high quality care, a perfect arrangement will not be found in all cases. Rather, we expect Lead Agencies to consider how they can best meet the developmental and learning needs of children in their policies and practices and to encourage partnerships among high quality providers, child care resource and referral agencies, and case management partners to strengthen CCDF's capacity to fulfill its child development mission for families.
Lead Agencies are encouraged to authorize adequate hours to allow children to participate in a high quality program, which may be more hours than the parent is working or in education or training. For example, if most local high quality early learning programs offer only full-time slots, a child whose parent is working part-time may need authorization for full-time care.
Two of the Act's purposes are “to promote parental choice to empower working parents to make their own decisions regarding the child care services that best suits their family's needs” and “to encourage States to provide consumer education information to help parents make informed choices about child care services and to promote involvement by parents and family members in the development of their children in child care settings.” Subpart D of the regulations describes parental rights and responsibilities and provisions related to parental choice, including parental access to their children, requirements that Lead Agencies maintain a record of parental complaints, and consumer education activities conducted by Lead Agencies to increase parental awareness of the range of child care options available to them.
We propose to incorporate this policy interpretation into regulation by adding paragraph (g) at § 98.30 clarifying that as long as parental choice provisions at paragraph (f) of this section are met, parental choice provisions should not be construed as prohibiting a Lead Agency from establishing policies that require child care providers that serve children receiving subsidies to meet higher standards of quality as defined in a QRIS or other transparent system of quality indicators.
When establishing such policies, we encourage Lead Agencies to assess the availability of care across categories and types, and availability of care for specific subgroups (
Lead Agencies should ensure adequate time and support for providers before implementing a policy that requires providers to meet a certain level of quality in order to be eligible to serve CCDF children. While most States and Territories have implemented a QRIS, the number of providers participating varies significantly. In order to implement the policy at § 98.30(g), Lead Agencies should ensure that an adequate number of child care providers are included in the QRIS to provide parents with a variety of settings and high quality child care options from which to choose. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that providers have been given the financial, technical, and professional development supports necessary to meet high quality standards.
Similarly, we propose adding paragraph (h) at § 98.30 to clarify that Lead Agencies may provide parents with information and incentives that encourage the selection of high quality child care without violating parental choice provisions. For example, Lead Agencies may provide brochures or other products that encourage parents to select a high quality provider without violating parental choice provisions. This provision would allow, but not require, Lead Agencies to adopt policies that incentivize parents to choose high quality providers as determined by a system of quality indicators and we strongly encourage that they do so. We believe this policy change would help Lead Agencies leverage the CCDF quality funds that have been invested in QRIS and ensure that more children receiving CCDF are in high quality child care, which is in line with the new purposes and provisions in the statute.
Lead Agencies would have the flexibility to determine what types of information and incentives to use to encourage parents to choose high quality providers. One option is to lower parental copayments for parents that choose a high quality provider. We encourage Lead Agencies, or their partners such as child care resource and referral agencies, to use information from a QRIS or other system of quality indicators to make recommendations and help parents make informed child care decisions, for example, by listing the highest rated providers at the top of a referral list and providing information about the importance of high quality child care. Lead Agencies are not limited to these examples and should design information sharing and incentives in a way that best fits the families they serve with CCDF.
We propose a technical change at § 98.31 to specify that Lead Agencies shall provide a detailed description “in the Plan” of how they ensure that providers allow parents to have unlimited access to their children while the children are in care. This corresponds to the provision at § 98.16(t).
The purpose of the proposed parental complaint hotline is to provide parents with an easy way to submit complaints about a child care provider or their staff. The current process for complaint submission varies widely across Lead Agencies, with some lacking any system at all. According to an analysis of FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, as well as State/Territory child care and licensing Web sites, 18 States/Territories have a parental complaint hotline that covers all CCDF providers, 22 States/Territories have a parental complaint hotline that covers some child care providers, and 16 States/Territories do not have a parental complaint hotline. Maintaining and sharing substantiated complaints is a statutory requirement and establishing a clear, easily-accessible way for parents to file complaints is an important part of meeting that requirement.
The value of parental complaint hotlines is illustrated by the longstanding national hotline established for the Department of Defense (DOD) military child care program. The Military Child Care Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-189) required the creation of a national 24 hour, toll-free hotline that allows parents to submit complaints about military child care centers anonymously. DOD has found the hotline to be an important tool in engaging parents in child care. In addition, complaints received through the hotline have helped DOD identify problematic child care programs. (Campbell, N., Appelbaum, J., Martinson, K.,
Lead Agencies can meet the proposed requirement at § 98.32(a) by establishing a telephone hotline or other type of system, such as a web-based system for accepting parental complaints about child care providers. However, we discourage reliance on only a web-based system as some families may have limited access to the Internet. We strongly encourage a parental complaint system that includes multiple submission platforms such as both telephonic and web-based submission. Regardless of the type of system utilized, Lead Agencies are encouraged to establish multilingual options and to ensure access for those with hearing and vision impairments.
The Lead Agency may choose a different agency at the State, Territory, Tribal, or local level to manage the parental complaint system or find ways to combine the process for collecting parental complaints with already existing hotlines. For example, in some States/Territories the licensing agency handles complaints of licensed providers and a different agency handles license-exempt providers. Lead Agencies may choose to devolve management of a complaint system to the local level in order to facilitate more prompt and timely follow-up. We leave it to the discretion of the Lead Agency to determine the best way to manage the hotline.
We also strongly encourage Lead Agencies to implement a single point of entry (
Lead Agencies should widely publicize the process for submitting a complaint about a provider and consider requiring child care providers to publicly post the process, including the hotline number and/or URL for the web-based complaint system, in their center or family child care home. Other areas for posting may be on the Web site required by § 98.33(a), through a child care resource and referral network, at local agencies where parents apply for benefits, or other consumer education materials distributed by the Lead Agency. In addition to making sure this information is made widely available to the public, the hotline or other reporting process must be disclosed to parents receiving CCDF as part of their consumer statement at § 98.33(d). To be most useful, parents should be able to file a complaint at any time. We strongly recommend that a telephonic hotline be operational 24 hours a day, or at minimum include a voicemail system that allows parents to leave complaints when an operator is not available. We encourage Lead Agencies to have a complaint response plan in place that includes appropriate time frames for following up on a complaint depending on the urgency or severity of the parent's concern and other relevant factors. We are not requiring Lead Agencies to do a monitoring visit in response to a complaint. However, inspections and monitoring visits may be necessary in order to substantiate the complaints received through the proposed hotline. Therefore, Lead Agencies should have a process for substantiating those complaints. We strongly recommend this process include unannounced visits in response to a complaint pertaining to the health and safety of children in the care of child care providers receiving CCDF. As discussed in Subpart E of this preamble, we are seeking comment on whether the final rule should include a requirement that Lead Agencies conduct an unannounced monitoring visit in response to a complaint, and whether this requirement should apply to providers receiving CCDF funds or additional providers.
We propose a technical change at § 98.32(c), which we propose to redesignate as § 98.32(d), to specify that Lead Agencies shall provide a detailed description “in the Plan” of how they will maintain and make available to the public a record of substantiated parental complaints. This corresponds to the provision at § 98.16(s).
In the 2014 reauthorization, Congress expanded the requirements related to consumer and provider education. Section 658E(c)(2)(E) of the CCDBG Act requires Lead Agencies to collect and disseminate, through child care resource and referral organizations or other means as determined by the Lead Agency, to parents of eligible children, the general public, and, where applicable, providers, consumer education information that will promote informed child care services. In addition, Section 658E(c)(2)(D) requires monitoring and inspection reports of child care providers to be made available electronically. This focus on consumer education as a crucial part of
Every interaction parents have with the subsidy system is an opportunity to engage them in consumer education to help them make informed decisions about their child care providers, as well as provide resources that promote child development. We propose that consumer education services be directly included as part of the intake and eligibility process for families applying for child care assistance. Parents of eligible children often lack the information necessary to make informed decisions about their child care arrangement. Low-income working families may face additional barriers when trying to find information about child care providers, such as limited access to the internet, limited literacy skills, limited English proficiency, or disabilities. Lead Agencies can play an important role in bridging the gap created by these barriers by providing information directly to families receiving CCDF subsidies to ensure they fully understand their child care options and are able to assess the quality of providers.
When implementing proposed consumer and provider education provisions, we recommend Lead Agencies consider three target audiences: Parents, the general public, and child care providers. While some components are aimed at ensuring parents have the information they need to choose a child care provider, others are equally important for caregivers who interact with parents on a regular basis and can serve as trusted sources of information.
Lead Agencies should ensure that all materials are consumer-friendly and easily accessible; this includes using plain language and considering the abilities, languages, and literacy levels of the targeted audiences. Lead Agencies should consider translation of materials into multiple languages, as well as the use of “taglines” on consumer education materials for frequently encountered non-English languages and to inform persons with disabilities how they can access auxiliary aids or services and receive information in alternate formats at no cost.
The statute requires the Web site to be consumer-friendly and easily accessible. To ensure that the Web site is accessible for all families, we propose to require that it provide for the widest possible access to services for families who speak languages other than English and persons with disabilities. Lead Agencies should make sure the Web site meets all Federal and State laws regarding accessibility, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101,
Parents should be able to access all consumer information they need to make an informed choice through a simple, single online source. We encourage Lead Agencies to review current systems and redesign if needed to allow for a single point of entry, especially if the systems are funded with CCDF funds. However, we recognize that Lead Agencies have made significant investments in databases and other web-based applications. For many States/Territories, the CCDF Lead Agency and the licensing agency may not be the same, leading to multiple data systems with different ownership. We do not intend to require completely new systems be built. Rather, the Web site would be a single starting point for parents to access the various sources of public information required by the statute, including health and safety information, licensing history, and other related provider information. In the case where this information is already available on multiple Web sites, such as in a locally-administered State where each county has its own Web site, the Lead Agency could choose to create a single Web page that includes links to each of these Web sites, provided that each of the Web sites meets all the criteria at § 98.33(a). Similarly, if there are two Web sites, one that includes licensed providers and another that includes CCDF providers, we strongly encourage Lead Agencies to create a single Web site through which parents can access information.
The first statutorily required component of the consumer education Web site is a description of Lead Agency policies and procedures relating to child care. This includes explaining how the Lead Agency licenses child care providers including the rationale for exempting providers from licensing requirements, as described at § 98.40; the procedure for conducting monitoring and inspections of child care providers, as described at § 98.42; policies and procedures related to criminal background checks for staff members of child care providers, as described at § 98.43; and the offenses that prevent individuals from being employed by a child care provider or receiving CCDF funds. The information about Lead Agency policies and procedures included on the consumer education Web site should be in plain language.
The second proposed component is provider-specific information in several categories for all eligible and licensed child care providers, excluding those related to all children in their care. These categories include a localized list of all providers that is searchable by zip code and differentiates whether they are licensed or license-exempt providers; information about the quality of a provider as determined by the Lead Agency, if the information is available for that provider; and the results of monitoring and inspection reports, including those due to major substantiated complaints about failure to comply with health and safety provisions and Lead Agency policies, if available; and the number of serious injuries and deaths of children occurring in that child care setting. When making information public, Lead Agencies should ensure that the privacy of individual caregivers and children is maintained, consistent with State and, local, and tribal laws.
While not required, we recommend that Lead Agencies include additional information with provider profiles, beyond what is required by statute, including contact information, enrollment capacity, years in operation, education and training of caregivers, and languages spoken by caregivers. We also suggest that the quality information and monitoring reports be included in the initial search results.
The Act requires the Secretary to operate a national Web site for consumer education and submission of complaints. (Section 658L(b)(2)). The statute requires several components be included in the Web site, including many of the same requirements of the Lead Agency consumer education Web sites. We are proposing to incorporate all requirements of the national Web site into the requirements of the Lead Agency consumer education Web site, including the localized list of child care providers searchable by zip code proposed at § 98.33(a)(2)(i). The statute allows for the national Web site to provide the information either “directly or through linkages to State databases.” It is not feasible or sensible for HHS to recreate databases many States have already created. Therefore, we are proposing to require Lead Agencies to include these components in their databases and Web sites to which we plan to link the national Web site. We welcome comments regarding this proposed provision and suggestions for having the national Web site link to State/Territory-level databases and Web sites.
The Web site must include provider-specific quality information as determined by the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 658E(c)(2)(E)(i)(II) of the Act. Lead Agencies may choose the best method for differentiating the quality levels of child care providers. In this proposed rule, we are not requiring that Lead Agencies have a QRIS. However, we strongly encourage Lead Agencies to use a QRIS, or other transparent system of quality indicators, to collect the quality information proposed at § 98.33(a)(2)(ii). Lead Agencies that have a QRIS should use information from the QRIS to provide parents with provider-specific quality information. By transparent system of quality indicators we mean a method of clear, research-based indicators that are appropriate for different types of providers, including child care centers and family child care homes, and appropriate for providers serving different age groups of children, including infants, toddlers, preschool, and school-age children. The system should help families easily understand whether a provider offers services meeting Lead Agency-determined best practices and standards to promote children's development, or is meeting a nationally recognized, research-based set of criteria, such as Head Start or national accreditation. We encourage Lead Agencies to incorporate mandatory licensing requirements as the foundation of any system of quality indicators, as a baseline of information for parents. By building on licensing structures, Lead Agencies may have an easier transition to a more sophisticated system that differentiates between indicators of quality.
Because not all eligible and licensed non-relative child care providers may be included in a transparent system of quality indicators, the proposed regulation clarifies that provider-specific quality information must only be posted on the consumer Web site if it is available for the individual provider, which is a caveat included in statute. We recognize that it takes time to build a comprehensive system that is inclusive of a large number of providers across a wide geographic area. However, in order for the quality information provided on the Web site to be meaningful and useful for parents it should include as many providers as possible. We are not proposing a specific participation rate, but the public should have contextual information regarding the extent of participation by providers in a system of quality indicators.
In designing a mechanism for differentiating child care quality, we suggest considering the following key principles: Provide outreach to targeted audiences; ensure indicators are research-based and incorporate the use of validated observational tools when feasible; ensure assessments of quality include program standards that are developmentally appropriate for different age groups; incorporate feedback from child care providers and families; make linkages between consumer education and other family-specific issues such as care for children with special needs; engage community partners; and establish partnerships that build upon the strengths of child care resource and referral programs and other public agencies that serve low-income parents.
The majority of States/Territories reported in their FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans that they have at least started to implement a QRIS. HHS has established a Priority Performance Goal to track the number of States that implement a QRIS meeting recommended benchmarks, and, as of FY 2014, 29 States/Territories met the benchmark, and 27 States/Territories have made progress on implementing a high quality QRIS that meets HHS benchmarks since the goal was establish in FY 2011.
While ACF encourages Lead Agencies to implement a systemic framework for evaluating, improving, and communicating the level of quality in child care programs, we are not limiting Lead Agencies to a QRIS as the only mechanism for collecting the required quality information. Lead Agencies have the flexibility to implement more limited, alternative systems of quality indicators. For example, Lead Agencies could choose to use a profile or report card of information about a child care provider that could include compliance with State/Territory licensing or health and safety requirements, information about ratios and group size, average teacher training or credentials, type of curriculum used, any private accreditations held, and presence of caregivers to work with young English learners or children with special needs. Lead Agencies could also build on existing professional development registries or other training systems to provide parents with information about caregiver training.
Section 658E(c)(2)(D) of the Act requires Lead Agencies to also include provider-specific results of monitoring and inspection reports, including those reports that are due to major substantiated complaints (as defined by the Lead Agency) about a provider's failure to comply with health and safety requirements and other Lead Agency policies. The definition of “major substantiated complaint” varies across the country. Therefore, we are not proposing a standard definition. However, the proposed rule would require Lead Agencies to explain how they define it on their consumer education Web sites. This proposed requirement ensures that the results of proposed monitoring and inspection requirements at § 98.42 are available to parents when they are deciding on a child care provider.
We propose requiring Lead Agencies to post full monitoring and inspection reports. In order for inspection results to be consumer-friendly and easily accessible, Lead Agencies would be required to use plain language for parents and child care providers and caregivers to understand. Often monitoring and inspection reports are long and include jargon and references to codes or regulations without any explanation. Reports that include complicated references and lack explanation are not consumer-friendly, limiting a parent's ability to make an informed decision about a child care
We propose to require that results be posted in a timely manner and include information about the date of inspection, information about any corrective actions taken by the Lead Agency and child care provider, where applicable, and include at least five years of results, where available going forward. A single year of results could mask patterns of infractions and is insufficient for a parent to judge the safety of the environment. We do not expect Lead Agencies to post reports retrospectively or prior to the effective date of this provision (November 17, 2017). We expect Lead Agencies to keep five years of results posted once they are available, beginning with the November 17, 2017 effective date (unless a provider has been providing services for less time). We believe five years is a reasonable amount of time to include on the Web site. As adding new results to the completed Web site should not be a burden for the Lead Agency, we expect all reports to remain on the Web site. Finally, while not required, if earlier reports are available, we encourage Lead Agencies to post them on the Web site in order to provide more information for parents.
Posting results and corrective actions in a timely manner is crucial to ensuring parents have updated information when making their provider decisions. We recommend Lead Agencies update results as soon as possible and no later than 90 days after an inspection or corrective action is taken. We are interested in comments on whether this is an appropriate amount of time. However, we are not in the proposed rule defining timely in the regulatory language. Rather, the proposed rule would leave it to the discretion of the Lead Agency to determine a reasonable amount of time based on the needs of its families and its capacity for updating.
In following the statutory language at Section 658E(c)(2)(D), Lead Agencies must post the monitoring and inspections results for child care providers, as defined at § 98.2. This means that the Web site must include any provider subject to the monitoring requirements at § 98.42, as well as all licensed child care providers and all child care providers eligible to deliver CCDF services. Lead Agencies would be required to post inspection reports for child care providers that do not receive CCDF, if available. However, if information is not available, such as if a provider is not being inspected and there is no inspection report, the requirement does not apply.
Lead Agencies with concerns regarding providers' privacy could use a unique identifier, such as a licensing number, to include on the profile. Parents interested in a certain provider can ask the provider or the Lead Agency for the identifier in order to look up more information about health and safety requirements met by a certain provider on the Web site. Lead Agencies also may choose to provide only limited information about a provider, such as provider name and zip code to make it easier for parents to identify their chosen provider.
We strongly support Lead Agencies implementing policies that are fair to providers, including protections related to the consumer education Web site. Lead Agencies should establish an appeals process for providers that receive violations. This appeals process should include timeframes for filing the appeal, for the investigation, and for removal of any violations from the Web site determined on appeal to be unfounded. Lead Agencies also must ensure that the consumer education Web site is updated regularly. Some Lead Agencies currently allow providers to review monitoring and inspection results prior to posting on a public Web site. Nothing in this proposed rule should be taken as prohibiting that practice moving forward. However, the proposed requirement that information be posted in a timely manner means that Lead Agencies may need to limit the amount of time providers have to review the results prior to posting.
Finally, we propose to require that Lead Agencies post provider-specific information about the number of serious injuries (as defined by the State) and deaths that occurred in child care for all eligible child care providers on the consumer education Web site. This information should be included as part of the child care provider's profile discussed earlier. This proposed requirement works in conjunction with the proposed provision at § 98.42(b)(4), which would require child care providers to report serious injuries or deaths occurring in child care. Because Lead Agencies have different definitions, we are not proposing to define serious injury in this proposed rule.
Whether a provider has a history of serious injuries or deaths of children while in their care is a crucial piece of information that parents must have access to in order to make an informed decision about a provider. In addition, learning that a provider does not have a history of violations may provide parents additional peace of mind when leaving their children with a provider.
We recognize that not all serious injuries or deaths of children that occur in child care are the fault of the child care provider. We recommend that Lead Agencies include additional information about the context of the serious injuries and deaths to ensure that parents have the full picture when looking at these numbers on the consumer education Web site.
We are not proposing to require provider-specific information on substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect that occurred while a child was in the care of the provider. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(viii)-(ix)) requires States to preserve the confidentiality of all child abuse and neglect reports and records to protect the privacy of the child and the child's parent or guardian. We believe that requiring provider-specific information on occurrences of child abuse and neglect may violate some of those privacy requirements. However, we think it is important for parents to have access to this information as well. We request comment on whether this information should be included and suggestions for ensuring the information does not violate privacy rules.
The third statutorily required component of the consumer education Web site is posting of the aggregate number of deaths, serious injuries, and instances of substantiated child abuse that occurred in child care settings each year, for eligible child care providers. This proposed requirement is associated with the provider setting and therefore it should include information about any child in the care of a provider eligible to receive CCDF, not just children receiving subsidies. As with serious injuries, we are choosing not to define substantiated child abuse in this proposed rule. We encourage Lead Agencies to use their State or Territory child welfare agency's definition of substantiated child abuse for consistent reporting across programs. Because of the wide variation in how child abuse in child care settings is reported and counted, we are requesting comments and examples about best practices for ensuring accurate data is collected and posted on the consumer education Web site. Lead Agencies may choose how the data are presented on the Web site. We encourage them to include the data with
The fourth proposed component of the consumer education Web site is the ability to refer to local child care resource and referral organizations, which is also a requirement of the national Web site discussed earlier. The Web site should include contact information, as well as any links to Web sites for any local child care resource and referral organizations.
The final component of the consumer education Web site is information on how parents can contact the Lead Agency, or its designee, or other programs that can help the parent understand information included on the consumer education Web site. The proposed consumer education Web site at § 98.33(a) represents a significant step in making it easier for parents to access information about the child care system and potential child care providers. However, the amount of information may be difficult to understand or find. In addition, parents searching for child care may prefer to speak with a person directly as they make decisions about their child's care. Therefore, we propose that the Web site include information about how to contact the Lead Agency, or its designee such as a child care resource and referral agency, to answer any questions parents might have after reviewing the Web site.
The statute requires consumer education to include: Information about the availability of child care services through CCDF, other programs for which families might be eligible, and the availability of financial assistance to obtain child care services; other programs for which families receiving CCDF may be eligible; programs carried out under Section 619 and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431
The first required piece of information is about the availability of child care services through CCDF and other programs that parents may be eligible for, as well as any other financial assistance that may be available to help parents obtain child care services. Lead Agencies should provide information about any other Federal, State/Territory/Tribal, or local programs that may pay for child care or other early childhood education programs, such as Head Start, Early Head Start and state-funded pre-kindergarten that would meet the needs of parents and children. It should also explain how other forms of child care assistance, including CCDF, are available to cover additional hours the parent might need due to their work schedule.
The second statutory requirement is for consumer education to include information about other assistance programs for which families receiving child care assistance may be eligible. These programs include: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (42 U.S.C. 601
In providing consumer education, Lead Agencies may consider the most appropriate and effective ways to reach families, which may include information in multiple languages and partnerships with other agencies and organizations, including child care resource and referral. Lead Agencies should also coordinate with workforce development entities that have direct contacts with parents in need of child care. Some Lead Agencies co-locate services for families in order to assist with referrals or enrollment in other programs.
Families eligible for child care assistance are often eligible for other programs and benefits but many parents lack information on accessing the full range of programs available to support their children. More than half of infants and toddlers in CCDF have incomes below the federal poverty level, making them eligible for Early Head Start. Lead Agencies can work with Early Head Start programs, including those participating in Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships, to direct children who are eligible for Early Head Start to available programs.
Despite considerable overlap in eligibility among the major work support programs, historically, many eligible working families have not received all public benefits for which they qualify. For example, more than 40 percent of children who are likely to be eligible for both SNAP and Medicaid or CHIP fail to participate in both programs (Rosenbaum, D. and Dean, S.
In addition to informing families about the availability of these programs, some Lead Agencies have streamlined parents' access to other benefits and services by coordinating and aligning eligibility criteria or processes and/or documentation or verification requirements across programs. This benefits both families and administering agencies by reducing administrative burden and inefficiencies. Lead Agencies also coordinate to share data across programs so families do not have to submit the same information to multiple programs. Finally, Lead Agencies have created online Web sites or portals to allow families to screen for eligibility and potentially apply for multiple programs. We recommend Lead Agencies consider alignment strategies that help families get improved access to all benefits for which they are eligible.
Thirdly, consumer education must also include information about programs for children with disabilities carried out under Part B Section 619 and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431
The fourth piece of required consumer education is information about research and best practices
While this information is important for parents and the general public, we encourage Lead Agencies to target this information to child care providers as well. Each of these components is crucial for caregivers to understand in order to provide an enriching learning environment and build strong relationships with parents. Lead Agencies may choose to include information about family engagement frameworks in their provider education. Many States and communities have employed these frameworks to promote caregiver skills and knowledge through their QRIS, professional development programs, or efforts to build comprehensive early childhood systems. States have used publicly-available tools, including from the Office of Head Start. The Head Start
Understanding research and best practices concerning children's development is an essential component for the health and safety of children, both in and outside of child care settings. Caregivers should be knowledgeable of important developmental milestones not only to support the healthy development of children in their care, but also so they can be a resource for parents and provide valuable parent education. Knowledge of developmental stages and milestones also reduces the odds of child abuse and neglect by establishing more reasonable expectations about normative development and child behavior. This requirement is associated with the proposed requirement at § 98.44(b)(1) that orientation or pre-service for child care caregivers, teachers and directors include training on child development.
Lastly, consumer education must include provision of information about policies regarding social-emotional behavioral health of children, which may include positive behavioral health intervention and support models for birth to school-age or as age- appropriate, and policies on suspension and expulsion of children birth to age five in child care and other early childhood programs as described in the Plan at § 98.16(ee).
Social-emotional development is fostered through securely attached relationships; and learning, by extension, is fostered through frequent cognitively enriching social interactions within those securely attached relationships. Studies indicate that securely attached children are more advanced in their cognitive and language development, and show greater achievement in school. In 2015, ACF issued an information memorandum detailing research and policy options related to children's social-emotional development. (CCDF-ACF-IM-2015-01,
In conjunction with this consumer education requirement, we are proposing to add § 98.16(ee) to require Lead Agencies to provide a description of their policies on suspension and expulsion of children birth to age five in child care and other early childhood programs receiving CCDF assistance. Ensuring that parents and providers understand suspension and expulsion policies for children birth to age five is particularly important. In 2014, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Education jointly released a policy statement addressing expulsion and suspension in early learning settings and highlighting the importance of social-emotional and behavioral health (
Educating parents and caregivers on what resources are available for developmental screenings, as well as how to access these screenings, is crucial to ensuring that developmental delays or disabilities are identified early. Some children may require a more thorough evaluation by specialists and additional services and supports. Lead Agencies should ensure that all providers are knowledgeable on how to access resources to support developmental and behavioral screening, and make appropriate referrals to specialists, as needed, to ensure that children receive the services and supports they need as early as possible.
While we are not proposing that all children be required to receive a
If a parent chooses a provider that is legally-exempt from regulatory requirements or exempt from CCDF health and safety requirements (
There is a great deal of variation in how Lead Agencies handle intake for parents receiving child care subsidies. Therefore, we propose flexibility for Lead Agencies to implement the proposed consumer statement in the way that best fits both their administrative needs and the needs of the parents. This means that the consumer statement may be presented as a hard copy or electronically. When providing this information, a Lead Agency may provide it by referring to the Web site required by § 98.33(a). In such cases, the Lead Agency should ensure that parents have access to the Internet or provide access on-site in the subsidy office. While we recognize the need for Lead Agency flexibility in this area, we have concerns about relying solely on electronic consumer statements. Parents may not have access to the Internet or may have questions about the consumer statement that need to be answered by a person. If a parent is filing an application online, we encourage the inclusion of a phone number, directed to either the Lead Agency or another organization such as a child care resource and referral agency, to ensure parents can have their questions answered. We also recommend that intake done over the phone should include the offer to either email or mail the consumer statement to the parent; and, that information on consumer statements should be accessible by individuals with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities.
We realize, in some cases, a parent has chosen their provider prior to the intake process. If the parent comes in with a provider already chosen, the parent should be given the consumer statement on that provider. When a parent has not chosen a child care provider prior to intake, Lead Agencies should ensure that the parent receives information about available child care providers and general consumer education information proposed at § 98.33(a), (b), and (c). This information should include a description of health and safety requirements and licensing or regulatory requirements for child care providers, processes for ensuring requirements are met, as well as information about the background check process for child care staff members of providers, and what offenses may preclude a provider from serving children. Once the parent selects a provider, this proposed provision would require the Lead Agency to provide a consumer statement to the parent with information about the provider they have selected, such as by mail or email.
Finally, we encourage Lead Agencies to provide parents receiving CCDF assistance with updated information on their child care provider on a periodic basis, such as by providing an updated consumer statement at the time of the family's next eligibility redetermination. Ties between the CCDF Lead Agency and the licensing agency can help to ensure that families are notified when providers are seriously out-of-compliance with health and safety requirements, and that placement of children and payment of CCDF funds do not continue where children's health and safety may be at-risk.
An area we want to highlight is child care consumer education for families receiving TANF. Commenters on our 2013 NPRM expressed concern that families receiving TANF are not given the support needed to identify high quality child care and that there should be a more coordinated, seamless process for TANF families to access consumer information on the availability of high quality providers. We strongly recommend that Lead Agencies provide parents receiving TANF and child care assistance, whether through CCDF or TANF, with the necessary support and consumer education in choosing child care. We strongly encourage social service agencies, child care licensing agencies, child care resource and referral agencies, and other related programs to work closely to ensure that
Subpart E of the regulations describes Lead Agency and provider requirements related to applicable State/Territory and local regulatory and health and safety requirements, monitoring and inspections, and criminal background checks. It addresses training and professional development requirements for caregivers, teachers, and directors working for CCDF providers. It also includes provisions requiring the Lead Agency to ensure that payment rates to providers serving children receiving subsidies ensure equal access to the child care market, to establish a sliding fee scale that provides for affordable cost-sharing for families receiving assistance, and to establish priorities for who receives child care services.
Section 658E(c)(2)(F) of the Act maintains the requirement that every Lead Agency has in effect licensing requirements applicable to child care services within its jurisdiction. The Act now requires Lead Agencies, if they exempt any CCDF providers from licensing requirements, to describe “why such licensing exemption does not endanger the health, safety, or development of children who receive services from child care providers who are exempt from such requirements.” We include a corresponding change in the proposed rule at § 98.40(a)(2), and we provide clarification that the Lead Agency's description must include a demonstration of how such exemptions do not endanger children and that such descriptions and demonstrations must include any exemptions based on provider category, type, or setting; length of day; providers not subject to licensing because the number of children served falls below a Lead Agency-defined threshold; and any other exemption to licensing requirements. This relates to the corresponding CCDF Plan provision proposed at § 98.16(u).
To clarify, this requirement does not compel the Lead Agency to offer exemptions from licensing requirements to providers. Rather, it requires that, if the Lead Agency chooses to do so, it must provide a rationale for that decision. We also note that these exemptions refer to exemptions from licensing requirements, but that license-exempt CCDF providers continue to be subject to the health and safety requirements applicable to all CCDF providers in the Act. The only allowable exception to CCDF health and safety requirements is for providers who care only for their own relatives, which we discuss further below.
The Act requires Lead Agencies to have in effect health and safety requirements for providers and caregivers caring for children receiving CCDF assistance that relate to ten health and safety topics: (i) Prevention and control of infectious diseases (including immunization); (ii) prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and use of safe sleeping practices; (iii) administration of medication, consistent with standards for parental consent; (iv) prevention and response to emergencies due to food and allergic reactions; (v) building and physical premises safety, including identification of and protection from hazards that can cause bodily injury such as electrical hazards, bodies of water, and vehicular traffic; (vi) prevention of shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma; (vii) emergency preparedness and response planning for emergencies resulting from a natural disaster, or a man-caused event (such as violence at a child care facility); (viii) handling and storage of hazardous materials and the appropriate disposal of bio contaminants; (ix) appropriate precautions in transporting children, if applicable; and (x) first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
The Act says that health and safety topics “may include requirements relating to nutrition, access to physical activity, or any other subject area determined by the State to be necessary to promote child development or to protect children's health and safety” (Section 658E(c)(2)(I)(ii)), which we restate at § 98.41(a)(1)(xii). While these topics are optional in this proposed rule, we strongly encourage Lead Agencies to include them in basic health and safety requirements. Educating caregivers on appropriate nutrition, including age-appropriate feeding, and physical activity for young children is essential to prevent long-term negative health implications and assist children in reaching developmental milestones. We also propose to add “caring for children with special needs” as an optional topic on this list.
Lead Agencies are responsible for establishing standards in the above areas for CCDF providers and should require providers to develop policies and procedures that comply with these standards. We encourage Lead Agencies to adopt these standards for all caregivers and providers regardless of whether they currently receive CCDF funds. The Act requires health and safety training on the above topics to be completed pre-service or during an orientation period and on an ongoing basis. This training requirement is discussed in greater detail below in § 98.44 on training and professional development.
ACF recently released
Lead Agencies looking for guidance on establishing health and safety standards should consult ACF's
We propose reiterating these new health and safety requirements at § 98.41(a) and propose some clarifications. These include specifying that the health and safety requirements be appropriate to the age of the children served in addition to the provider setting. Lead Agency requirements should reflect necessary content variation, within the required topic areas, depending on the provider's particular circumstances. For example, prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and safe sleep training would only be necessary if a caregiver cares for infants. Similarly, if an individual is caring for children of different ages, training in first-aid and CPR should include elements that take into account that practices differ for infants and older children. We also clarify that, in addition to having these requirements in effect, they must be “implemented and enforced,” and that these requirements are subject to monitoring pursuant to § 98.42. This is intended to help ensure that requirements are put into practice and that providers are held accountable for meeting them. The required health and safety topics are included at § 98.41(1).
The intent of this provision was to reduce barriers to enrollment given the uniquely challenging circumstances of homeless and foster children, not to undermine children's health and safety. Therefore, we do not believe that the intent was for those children to be permanently exempt from immunization and other health and safety requirements. For that reason, we propose adding at § 98.41(a)(1)(i)(C)(
Ratio and group size standards are necessary to ensure that the environment is conducive to safety and learning. Child-staff ratios should be set such that caregivers can demonstrate the capacity to meet health and safety requirements and to evacuate all of the children in their care in a timely manner. A low child-staff ratio allows for stronger relationships between a child and their caregiver, which is a key component of quality child care. Studies of high quality early childhood programs found that group size and ratios mattered to the safety and the quality of children's experiences, as well as to children's health. (
While we are not establishing a Federal requirement for group size and child-staff ratios, there are resources that Lead Agencies can use when developing their standards.
Appropriate ratios should be kept during all hours of program operation. Children with special health care needs or who require more attention due to certain disabilities may require additional staff on-site, depending on their special needs and the extent of their disabilities. In center-based care, child-staff ratios should be determined by the age of the majority of children and the needs of children present. In family child care homes, the caregivers' children as well as any other children in the home temporarily requiring supervision should be included in the child-staff ratio. In family child care settings where there are mixed age groups that include infants and toddlers, a maximum ratio of 6:1 should be maintained and no more than two of these children should be 24 months or younger. If all children in care are under 36 months, a maximum ratio of 4:1 should be maintained and no more than two of these children should be 18 months or younger. If all children in care are 3 years old, a maximum ratio of 7:1 should be preserved. If all children in care are 4 to 5 years of age, a maximum ratio of 8:1 should be maintained.
As stated earlier, these represent baseline recommendations and Lead Agencies should not feel limited by them. ACF encourages Lead Agencies to consider the group size and child-staff ratios outlined in
Another resource for determining appropriate child-staff ratios and group sizes is
Because the CAPTA requirement above is not applicable to Tribes or, in some circumstances, to Territories, we propose to expand upon this provision at § 98.41(e) by requiring Lead Agencies to certify that caregivers, teachers, and directors of child care providers within the State (or service area) will comply with the State's, Territory's or Tribe's child abuse reporting requirements as required by section 106(b)(2)(B)(i) of CAPTA or other child abuse reporting procedures and laws in the service area. We propose adding this last phrase to be consistent with any other child abuse reporting procedures and laws that may apply in the service area. Territories and Tribes may have their own reporting procedures and mandated reporter laws. Also, some Tribes may work with States to use the State's reporting procedures. Further, the Federal Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act requires mandated reporters to report child abuse occurring in Indian country to local child protective services agency or a local law enforcement agency (18 U.S.C. 1169). While State, Territory, and Tribal laws about when and to whom to report vary, child care providers and staff are often considered mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect and responsible for notifying the proper authorities in accordance with applicable laws and procedures. Regardless, the provision is intended for the Lead Agency to ensure that caregivers, teachers, and directors follow all relevant child abuse and neglect reporting procedures and laws, regardless of whether a child care caregiver or provider is considered a
To support this statutory requirement, we propose adding “recognition and reporting of child abuse and neglect” to the list of health and safety topics at § 98.41(a)(1)(xi) to ensure that caregivers, teachers, and directors are properly trained to be able to recognize the manifestations of child maltreatment. Child abuse and neglect training can be used to educate and establish child abuse and neglect prevention and recognition measures for children, parents, and caregivers. While caregivers, teaches, and directors are not expected to investigate child abuse and neglect, it is important that all of these individuals be aware of common physical and emotional signs and symptoms of child maltreatment. According to the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, 31 States and Territories have a pre-service training requirement on mandatory reporting of suspected abuse or neglect for staff in child care centers and 25 States and Territories require pre-service training in this area for family child care.
The majority of § 98.42 is new, based on requirements added in the reauthorized statute. Lead Agencies receiving CCDF funds are required to have child care licensing systems in place and must ensure child care providers serving children receiving subsidies meet certain health and safety requirements.
We propose to add clarification at § 98.42(b)(2) that would require annual inspections for both licensed and license-exempt CCDF providers to include, but not be limited to, those health and safety requirements described in § 98.41. We also clarify that Tribes would be subject to the monitoring requirements, unless a Tribal Lead Agency requests an alternative monitoring methodology in its Plan and provides adequate justification, subject to ACF approval, pursuant to § 98.83(d)(2).
In addition to concerns about safeguarding children's well-being, ACF is very concerned that if all licensed child care providers are not subject to at least annual inspections, CCDF families would be restricted from accessing a portion of the provider population (those that have not been inspected annually), effectively denying children access to some providers, limiting parental choice, and resulting in a bifurcated system. We are soliciting comments on this concern and suggestions for addressing it to ensure equal access to child care for CCDF families.
Coordinating with other monitoring agencies can be beneficial to both agencies as they prevent duplication of services. As an example of current interagency coordination, one State holds monthly meetings with representation from its licensing division, CCDF Lead Agency, CACFP, and other public agencies with child care monitoring responsibilities. These divisions and agencies identify areas of overlap in monitoring and coordinate accordingly to leverage combined resources and minimize duplication of efforts. It is important that any shared costs be properly allocated between the organizations participating and benefiting from the partnership.
To the extent that other agencies provide an on-site monitoring component that may satisfy or partially satisfy the new monitoring requirement under the statute and this proposed rule, the Lead Agency is encouraged to pursue collaboration, which may include sharing information and data as well as coordinating resources. However, the Lead Agency is ultimately responsible for meeting these requirements and ensuring that any collaborative monitoring efforts satisfy all CCDF requirements.
A white paper developed by HHS's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), found the following:
Many states are using differential monitoring to make monitoring more efficient. As opposed to `one size fits all' systems of monitoring, differential monitoring determines the frequency and depth of needed monitoring from an assessment of the provider's history of compliance with standards and regulations. Providers who maintain strong records of compliance are inspected less frequently, while providers with a history of non-compliance may be subject to more announced and unannounced inspections. In some states, more frequent inspections are conducted for providers who are on a corrective action plan, or after a particularly egregious violation. (Trivedi, P. A. (2015).
Differential monitoring often involves monitoring programs using a subset of requirements to determine compliance. There are two methods used to identify rules for differential monitoring:
• Key Indicators: An approach that focuses on identifying and monitoring those rules that statistically predict compliance with all the rules; and
• Risk Assessment: An approach that focuses on identifying and monitoring those rules that place children at greater risk of mortality or morbidity if violations or citations occur.
ACF encourages Lead Agencies to consider the use of differential monitoring as a method for determining the scheduling and priority for unannounced monitoring visits. This may be based on an assessment of the child care provider's past level of compliance with health and safety requirements, information received that could indicate violations, or the occurrence of a monitoring visit from another program. Differential monitoring allows Lead Agencies to prioritize monitoring of providers that have previously been found out of compliance or the subject of parental complaints or that have not been monitored through other programs.
Lead Agencies should use data to make necessary adjustments to differential monitoring or the frequency of monitoring visits over time. For example, if widespread or significant compliance issues are found under existing monitoring protocol, the Lead Agency could consider increasing the frequency of monitoring visits. As discussed in
We also propose to clarify that inspectors be trained in health and safety requirements “appropriate to provider setting and age of children served.” Inspecting care for children of different ages, and in different settings, may require specialized training in order to understand differences in care. We also encourage Lead Agencies to consider the cultural and linguistic diversity of caregivers when addressing inspector competencies and training.
The Lead Agency may, at their option, have providers report to a “designated entity” as proposed at § 98.16(ff), which offers some flexibility on the implementation of the requirement. If there are existing structures in place that look at child morbidity, the Lead Agency would be able to work within that structure to establish a designated entity. The reporting mechanism can be tailored to fit with existing policies and procedures. Our purpose is the reporting of incidents so that the Lead Agency and other responsible entities can make the appropriate response.
The reauthorization added Section 658H on requirements for comprehensive, criminal background checks, which are a basic safeguard essential to protect the safety of children in child care and reduce children's risk of harm. Parents have the right to be confident that their children's caregivers, and others who come into contact with their children, do not have a record of violent offenses, sex offenses, child abuse or neglect, or other behaviors that would disqualify them from caring for children. A GAO report found several cases in which individuals convicted of serious sex offenses had access to children in child care facilities as employees, because they were not subject to a criminal history check prior to employment (GAO,
Comprehensive background checks have been a long-standing ACF policy priority. According to an analysis of the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, all States and Territories require that child care center staff undergo at least one type of criminal background check, and approximately 44 require a FBI fingerprint check for centers. Fifty-four States and Territories require family child care providers to have a criminal background check, and approximately 42 require an FBI fingerprint check. For some States and Territories, these requirements are currently limited to licensed providers, rather than all providers that serve children receiving CCDF subsidies.
We acknowledge that the statutory language is not clear about the universe of staff and providers subject to the background check requirement; however, we believe that our interpretation aligns with the general intent of the statute to improve the overall safety of child care services and programs. Furthermore, there is justification for applying this requirement in the broadest terms for two important reasons. First, all parents using child care deserve this basic protection of having confidence that those who are trusted with the care of their children do not have criminal backgrounds that may endanger the well-being of their children. Second, limiting those child care providers who are subject to background checks has the potential to severely restrict parental choice and equal access for CCDF children, two fundamental tenets of CCDF. If not all child care providers are subject to comprehensive background checks, providers could opt to not serve CCDF children, thereby restricting access. Creating a bifurcated system in which CCDF children have access to only a portion of child care providers who meet applicable standards would be incongruous with the purposes of the CCDBG Act and would not serve to advance the important goal of serving more low-income children in high quality care. We would like to invite comment on the anticipated impacts of requiring background checks for child care staff members of all licensed, regulated, and registered child care providers and all child care providers eligible to deliver CCDF services (other than an individual who is related to all children for whom child care services are provided) based on current State practices and policies.
The law defines a child care staff member as someone (other than an individual who is related to all children for whom child care services are provided) who is employed by the child care provider for compensation or whose activities involve unsupervised access to children who are cared for by the child care provider. We are proposing at § 98.43(a)(2)(ii) to include contract and self-employed individuals in the definition of child care staff members as they may have direct contact with children. We propose to require individuals, age 18 or older, residing in a family child care home be subject to background checks, as well as the disqualifying crimes and appeals processes. We asked for comment on individuals 18 or older in family child care homes receiving background checks in the 2013 NPRM and received support from commenters who agreed this was important for ensuring the safety of children in child care. Forty-three States require some type of background check of family members 18 years of age or older that reside in the family child care home (
We are asking for comment on whether additional individuals in the family child care home should be subject to the background check requirements. Volunteers who have not had background checks should not be left with children unsupervised. We encourage Lead Agencies to require that volunteers who have not had background checks be easily identified by children and parents, for example through visible name tags or clothing.
After extensive consultation with the FBI and other subject-matter experts, we propose technical changes to address duplication among these components. We propose to consolidate the list of required components in the regulations at § 98.43(b) to:
• A search of the National Crime Information Center's National Sex Offender Registry;
• A Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using Next Generation Identification; and
• A search of the following registries, repositories, or databases in the State where the child care staff member resides and each State where such staff member resided during the preceding 5 years:
○ State criminal registry or repository using fingerprints;
○ State sex offender registry or repository; and
○ State-based child abuse and neglect registry and database.
The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a law enforcement tool consisting of 21 files, including the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). The 21 files contain seven property files that help track missing property and 14 person files with information relevant to law enforcement (
ACF has identified a number of potential challenges in requiring an NCIC check. It is our understanding that
The FBI fingerprint check using Next Generation Identification (NGI) (formerly the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System- IAFIS) will provide a person's criminal history record information
Based on consultation with the FBI, we understand there is significant overlap between the FBI fingerprint check and the NSOR check (via the NCIC), yet there are a number of individuals in the NSOR who are not identified by solely conducting an FBI fingerprint search. The FBI links fingerprint records to the NSOR records via a Universal Control Number, but a small percentage of cases are missing the fingerprints. In some cases, individuals were not fingerprinted at the time of arrest, or the prints were rejected by the FBI for poor quality. This small percentage of records can be accessed through a name-based search of the NCIC, and a number of those individuals may also be identified by a search of the State sex offender registries.
Although we do not believe it is required, we also encourage an additional search of the National Sex Offender Public Web site (NSOPW) at
It is our understanding that there is some duplication between the NCIC, FBI fingerprint searches, and searches of State criminal, sex offender, and child abuse and neglect registries. An FBI fingerprint check provides access to national criminal history record information across State lines on people arrested for felonies and some misdemeanors under State, Federal, or Tribal law. However, there are instances where information is contained in State databases, but not in the FBI database. A search of the State criminal records and a FBI fingerprint check returns the most complete record and better addresses instances where individuals are not forthcoming regarding their past residences or committed crimes in a State in which they did not reside.
We are also proposing to require that the search of the State criminal records include a fingerprint check. The 2013 NPRM also proposed to require States to use a fingerprint check when checking the State's criminal history records. Fingerprint searches reduce instances of false positives and also help capture records filed under aliases. We do not believe that a fingerprint search of the State repository would be an additional burden. States can use the same set of fingerprints to check both the State criminal history check and the FBI fingerprint check.
In addition to gaps in the State criminal records, there are a number of instances in which an individual may be listed in the State sex offender registry and not in NSOR, and vice versa. For example, some States have statutes that disallow the removal of offenders, regardless of offender status, while in the NSOR the agency owning the record is required to remove the offender from active status once his/her sentencing is completed. In addition, federal, juvenile, and international sex offender records may be included in the NSOR; whereas, State laws may prohibit the use of this information in the State sex offender registry. Because of these discrepancies, we believe that it is important to check the State sex offender registries in addition to an FBI fingerprint check and a check of the NCIC NSOR.
The final component of a comprehensive background check included in the new law is the search of the State child abuse and neglect registries. We recognize that implementation of this critically important component of protecting children will vary across States. Every State has procedures for maintaining records of child abuse and neglect, but only 41 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico require central registries by statute. The type of information contained in central registries and department records differ from State to State. Some States maintain all investigated reports of abuse and neglect, while others maintain only substantiated reports. The length of time the information is held and the conditions for expunction also vary. Access to information maintained in registries and departments also varies by State and some States may need to make internal changes to meet the requirement to search the State's own child abuse and neglect registry. Approximately 31 States and the District of Columbia allow or require a check of the central registry or department records for individuals applying to be child or youth care providers. (
The law requires States to check the State criminal registry or repository; sex offender registry or repository; and child abuse and neglect registry and database for every State that a child care staff member has lived in for the past five years. Based on our preliminary conversations with States, the requirement to conduct cross-state background checks of the three different repositories is another unexplored area for Lead Agencies. We have heard concerns about how to obtain and interpret the results and protect the privacy of individuals. We are asking for comments on whether States have any best practices or strategies to share and how ACF can support Lead Agencies in meeting the cross-State background check requirements.
In particular, we have heard concern about cross-State checks of the child abuse and neglect registries. We understand that States have developed their own requirements for submitting requests, and there is not a uniform method of responding. In addition,
The cross-State background check requirement has similarities to language at Section 152(a)(1)(C) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(1)(C)) for foster or adoptive parents: “the State shall check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent, and request any other State in which any such prospective parent or other adult has resided in the preceding five years, to enable the State to check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by such State for such information, before the prospective foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child . . .” We are requesting comment from States about whether these systems for foster or adoptive parents could be used to support cross-State background checks for prospective child care staff members as well. It is impossible to know exactly how many individuals will require a check from another State. As discussed later in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, Census data on geographic mobility shows an out of state mobility rate of approximately 2 percent for employed adults.
While ACF is still working to understand how we can support cross-State background checks, this rule proposes a couple of provisions to help create transparency around the process. At § 98.43(a)(1)(iii), we propose that Lead Agencies must have “requirements, policies, and procedures in place to respond as expeditiously as possible to other States', Territories', and Tribes' requests for background check results in order to accommodate the 45 day timeframe.” We also propose that Lead Agencies include the process by which another Lead Agency may submit a background check request on the Lead Agency's consumer education Web site, along with all of the other background check policies and procedures. In addition, this proposed rule would require at § 98.16(o) that Lead Agencies describe in their Plans the procedures in place to respond to other State, Territory, or Tribal requests for background check results within the 45 day timeframe. ACF will use this question in the Plan to help ensure compliance with the background check requirements in the law. These proposals are intended to minimize confusion about the correct contact information for background check requests and ensure that there are processes in place for timely responses.
The Act did not include child abuse and neglect findings in the list of disqualifying crimes. Because there is so much variation in the information maintained in each registry, we are allowing Lead Agency flexibility in how to handle findings on the child abuse and neglect registries. We believe that the value of findings in these registries is in the identification of patterns of negative behavior.
Even though the law includes a specific list of disqualifications, it also allows Lead Agencies to prohibit individuals' employment as child care staff members based on their convictions for other crimes that may impact their ability to care for children. If a Lead Agency does disqualify an individual's employment, they must, at a minimum, give the individual the same rights and remedies described in § 98.43(e). This language from Section 658H(h) of the Act is restated in the proposed rule at § 98.43(h), and we have not proposed any changes. We strongly encourage Lead Agencies that chose to consider other crimes as disqualifying crimes for employment to ensure that a robust waiver and appeals process is in place. A waiver and appeals process should conform to the recommendations of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including the ability to waive findings based on factors as inaccurate information, certificate of rehabilitation, age when offense was committed, time since offense, and whether the nature of offense is a threat to children. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Lead Agencies may also consider requiring applicant self-disclosure for child care staff in order to avoid unnecessary checks on individuals who disclose information that would preclude them from passing a background check.
Although not a requirement, we encourage Lead Agencies to enroll child care staff members in rap back programs. A rap back program works as a subscription notification service. An individual is enrolled in the program, and the State Identification Bureau receives a notification if that individual is arrested or convicted of a crime. States can specify which events trigger a notification. Rap back programs provide authorizing agencies with notification of subsequent criminal and, in limited cases, civil activity of enrolled child care staff members so that background check information is not out of date. However, unless the rap back program includes all the components of a comprehensive background check under the law, the Lead Agency is responsible for ensuring that child care staff members complete all other components at least once every five years.
Section 658H(d)(4) of the Act specifies instances in which a child care provider does
In recognition of the possible logistical constraints and barriers to parents accessing the care they need, ACF proposes to allow prospective staff members to provide services to children on a provisional basis, while the background checks are being processed. We are proposing at § 98.43(d)(4) that a prospective staff member may begin work for a child care employer after a background check request has been submitted as long as: The staff member is continually supervised by an individual who has already completed the background check requirements. Prospective staff members in family child care homes may work under the continual supervision of a family child care provider, or other caregiver, who has completed the required checks. We encourage Lead Agencies to require child care providers to inform parents about background check policies and any provisional hires they may have. Allowing provisional hiring does offer more flexibility, but it is also important that Lead Agencies ensure that any provisional status is limited in scope and implemented with transparency.
We have heard from Lead Agencies that are concerned about not being able to meet the 45 day timeframe. Lead Agencies must work together with the relevant State/Territory entities to minimize delays. After the FBI receives electronic copies of fingerprints, they typically turn around background check results within 24 hours. There can be delays when the submitted fingerprint image quality is poor. Some States use hard copy fingerprints that need to be made electronic for submission to the FBI, which can lead to delays. We encourage Lead Agencies to adopt electronic fingerprinting, which allows for background check results to be processed more quickly.
We encourage Lead Agencies to leverage existing resources to build and automate their background check systems. One potential resource for States is the National Background Check Program (NBCP), as established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which aims to create a nationwide system for conducting comprehensive background checks on applicants for employment in the long-term care (LTC) industry. The NBCP is an open-ended funding opportunity that can award up to $3 million dollars (with a $1 million dollar State match) to each State to support building State background check infrastructure. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers the NBCP and since 2010, has awarded nearly $57 million in grant funds to participating States to design, implement, and operate background check programs that meet CMS's criteria.
In order for a Lead Agency to conduct FBI fingerprint checks, there must be statutory authority to authorize the checks. The CCDBG law may be used an authority to conduct FBI background checks, but Lead Agencies may continue to use other statutes as authorities to conduct FBI background checks on child care staff as well. Most Lead Agencies currently use Public Law 92-544 or the National Child Protection Act/Volunteers for Children Act (NCPA/VCA) (42 U.S.C. 5119a) as the authority to conduct FBI background checks. Public Law 92-544, enacted in 1972, gave the FBI authority to conduct background checks for employment and licensing purposes. The majority of States are using Public Law 92-544 as authority to conduct background checks, but a few States use the NCPA/VCA.
Public Law 92-544 is similar to the CCDBG statute and only allows the State to notify the provider whether an individual is eligible or ineligible for employment. Similarly, the NCPA/VCA requires dissemination of the results to a governmental agency, unless the State has implemented a Volunteer and Employee Criminal History System (VECHS) program. Thus, a major difference between the CCDBG statute and the NCPA/VCA with a VECHS program is in the protection of privacy of results. Through the NCPA/VCA VECHS program, Lead Agencies may share an individual's specific background check results with the child care provider, providing the individual has given consent. Lead Agencies have the flexibility to continue to use these statutes as authority to complete the FBI fingerprint check, as long as the employment determination process required by the CCDBG statute is followed. That is, Lead Agencies must make employment eligibility determinations in accordance with the requirements in the CCDBG Act, but they also may exercise the flexibility allowed through the NCPA/VCA VECHS program to share results of background checks with child care providers.
Section 658H(e)(4) of the Act, which is reiterated at § 98.43(e)(4) of the proposed rule, allows Lead Agencies to allow for a review process through which the Lead Agency may determine that a child care staff member (including a prospective child care staff member) convicted of a disqualifying drug-related offense, committed during the preceding five years, may be eligible for employment by a provider receiving CCDF funds. The review process must be consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e
ACF recognizes the important role that fees play in sustaining a background check system. While States and Territories cannot profit from background check fees, we do not want to prevent fees that support the necessary infrastructure. Fees cannot exceed costs and result in return to State general funds, but they can be used to build and maintain background check infrastructure. Further, we expect that Lead Agencies using third party contractors to conduct background checks will ensure that these contractors are not charging excessive fees that would result in huge profits. ACF does not want background check fees to be a barrier or burden for entry into the child care workforce. At Lead Agency discretion, CCDF funds may be used to pay the costs of background checks.
Section 658E(c)(2)(G) of the Act requires Lead Agencies to describe in their CCDF Plan their training and professional development requirements designed to enable child care providers to promote the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of children and to improve the knowledge and skills of caregivers, teachers, and directors in working with children and their families, which are applicable to child care providers receiving CCDF assistance.
At § 98.44 we elaborate on the statute's provisions for professional development at Section 658E(c)(2)(G), provider training on health and safety at Section 658E(c)(2)(I)(i)(XI), and provider qualifications at Section 658E(c)(2)(H)(i)(III), as a cohesive approach to training and professional development. Our proposed regulations build on the pioneering work of States on professional development and reflect current State policies.
Section 658E(c)(2)(G)(ii)(II) allows the Lead Agency to “engage training providers in aligning training opportunities with the State's training framework,” which we restate in the proposed rule at § 98.44(a)(2). We encourage the participation of the full range of training and professional development providers, including higher education and entities that grant certificates and credentials in early childhood education, to align with the framework. Training and professional development may be provided through
Proposed § 98.44(a)(3) describes the components of a professional development framework. We propose that Lead Agencies address six components (described below) in their professional development framework based on recommendations by the National Child Care Information Center and the National Center on Child Care Professional Development Systems and Workforce Initiatives (former technical assistance projects of the Office of Child Care), and national early childhood professional associations, including the National Association for the Education of Young Children. The recent report of the National Academies of Sciences' expert panel on the early childhood workforce speaks to the intentional and multifaceted system of supports that will be needed to ensure that every caregiver, teacher, and director can provide high quality development and learning to the diversity of children in child care and early childhood programs. (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015. Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press). The six proposed components are: Professional standards and competencies, career pathways, advisory structures, articulation, workforce information, and financing. These components are discussed below. In the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, the majority of States and Territories indicated that they have implemented the same components of a professional development framework system. We provide for flexibility on the strategies, breadth and depth with which States and Territories will develop and implement a framework that includes these components.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Act allows an orientation period during which staff can fulfill the training requirement. Lead Agencies will have broad flexibility to determine what training is required “pre-service” and what training may be completed during an “orientation” period. We propose that all orientation training be completed within three months of caring for children as recommended by
We expect variability in how Lead Agencies will implement this provision. There are a number of low or no cost resources available, including online resources, which cover many of these trainings. We do not advocate the exclusive use of online trainings, but believe that a mixed delivery training system that includes both online and in-person trainings can meet the varied needs of child care caregivers, teachers, and directors. We encourage Lead Agencies to permit individuals to use certificates and credentials that include a demonstration of competence in any or all of the health, safety, and child development topics to fulfill, partially or in full, the training requirements.
Section 658E(c)(2)(G)(iii) of the Act requires each Lead Agency's Plan to include the number of hours of training for eligible providers and caregivers to engage in annually, as determined by the Lead Agency. We propose to reiterate this requirement at § 98.44(b)(2) by requiring Lead Agencies to establish the minimum annual requirement for hours of training and professional development for caregivers, teachers and directors of CCDF providers. While Lead Agencies have flexibility to set the number of hours,
The Act also specifies that the ongoing professional development must: Incorporate knowledge and application of the Lead Agency's early learning and developmental guidelines (where applicable) and the Lead Agency's health and safety standards; incorporate social-emotional behavior intervention models, which may include positive behavior intervention and support models; be accessible to providers supported by Tribal organizations or Indian Tribes that receive CCDF assistance; and be appropriate for different populations of children, to the extent practicable, including different ages of children, English learners, children with disabilities, Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. We have re-stated these areas within § 98.44(b)(2)(iii) through (v) and (vii) with some elaboration. We propose at § 98.44(b)(2)(v) that the Plan promote, to the extent practicable, ongoing professional development opportunities that earn Continuing Education Units (CEUs) or are credit-bearing. Too often, early childhood educators participate in professional development that is not accepted by a credential or degree program or does not link to the career pathway. In some instances, this type of training is necessary, but often it results in an inefficient use of resources that does not help individuals advance professionally. CEUs and college credits are quality accountability mechanisms because they require some form of assessment of adult learning. CEUs may be accepted in some articulation agreements, particularly if granted by a higher education institution or accredited by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET). They also can facilitate articulation with degree programs, preventing individuals from repeating coursework for which they have already expended private funds or taken out loans. We encourage, as part of the State or Territory framework, a process for individuals to receive career and professional development advisement so that they can make informed choices about ongoing professional development opportunities.
Section 658E(c)(4) of the Act requires the Lead Agency to certify in its CCDF Plan that payment rates for CCDF subsidies are sufficient to ensure equal access for eligible children to child care services that are comparable to child care services provided to children whose parents are not eligible to receive child care assistance. In this NPRM, we are interpreting the comparison group as families whose incomes exceed 85 percent of SMI. Many families with income above 85 percent of SMI have higher quality child care options available to them and we propose that families receiving CCDF should have access to child care of comparable quality. The statute requires the CCDF Plan to provide a summary of the facts the Lead Agency used to determine that payment rates are sufficient to ensure equal access. This proposed rule modifies three key elements in the current regulation, now at § 98.45(b), used to determine that a CCDF program provides equal access for eligible families and proposes five additional elements consistent with statutory provisions on equal access and rate setting at Section 658E(c)(4) and payment practices at Section 658E(c)(2)(S) of the Act. As proposed, the summary of data and facts would include: (1) Choice of the full range of providers; (2) adequate payment rates, based on the most recent market rate survey or alternative methodology; (3) base payment rates established at least at a level sufficient to support implementation of the health, safety and quality requirements in the NPRM; (4) payment rates that are sufficient to provide parental choice for families receiving CCDF subsidies to access care that is of comparable quality to care that is available to families with incomes above 85 percent of State Median Income; (5) the cost of higher quality child care; (6) payment practices that support equal access to a range of providers; (7) affordable copayments; and (8) any additional facts considered by the Lead Agency. All of these proposed changes are discussed further below.
ACF will consider a market rate survey valid if it meets the following benchmarks:
• Includes the priced child care market. The survey includes child care providers within the priced market (
• Provides complete and current data. The survey uses data sources (or combinations of sources) that fully capture the universe of providers in the priced child care market. The survey should use lists or databases from multiple sources, including licensing, resource and referral, and the subsidy program, if necessary, for completeness. In addition, the survey should reflect up-to-date information for a specific time period (
• Represents geographic variation. The survey includes providers from all geographic parts of the State, Territory, or Tribal service area. It also should collect and analyze data in a manner that links prices to local geographic areas.
• Uses rigorous data collection procedures. The survey uses good data collection procedures, regardless of the
• Analyzes data in a manner that captures market differences. The survey should examine the price per child care slot, recognizing that all child care facilities should not be weighted equally because some serve more children than others. This approach best reflects the experience of families who are searching for child care. When analyzing data from a sample of providers, as opposed to the complete universe, the sample should be appropriately weighted so that the sample slots are treated proportionally to the overall sample frame. The survey should collect and analyze price data separately for each age group and category of care to reflect market differences.
The purpose of the market rate survey is to guide Lead Agencies in setting payment rates within the context of market conditions so that rates are sufficient to provide equal access to the full range of child care services, including high quality child care. However, the child care market itself often does not reflect the actual costs of providing child care and especially of providing high quality child care designed to promote healthy child development. Financial constraints of parents prevent child care providers from setting their prices to cover the full cost of high quality care, which is unaffordable for many families. As a result, a market rate survey may not provide sufficient information to assess the actual cost of quality care. Therefore, it's often important to consider a range of data, including, but not limited to, market rates, to understand prices in the child care market. In this proposed rule, we clarify that the market rate survey is intended to be an examination of prices and that Lead Agencies have flexibility to use data collection methodologies other than a survey so long as the data are reflective of the current child care market. For example, Lead Agencies may use administrative data from resource and referral agencies or other sources, which may be used to determine payment rates.
We propose that the market rate survey also include information on the extent to which child care providers are participating in CCDF and any barriers to participation, including barriers related to CCDF payment rates and practices. We expect that Lead Agencies would include questions related to identifying such barriers in their survey. Previous surveys and focus groups with child care providers have found that low payment rates as well late or delayed payments and other hassles may force some providers to stop serving or limit the number of children receiving subsidies in their care. Other providers may choose to not serve CCDF children at all. (Adams, G., Rohacek, M., and Snyder, K.,
The revised law allows a Lead Agency to base payment rates on an alternative methodology, such as a cost estimation model, in lieu of a market rate survey. A cost estimation model is one such alternative approach in which a Lead Agency can estimate the cost of providing care at varying levels of quality based on resources a provider needs to remain financially solvent. The Provider Cost of Quality Calculator is a publicly available Web-based tool that calculates the cost of quality-based on site-level provider data for any jurisdiction. Many States, working with the Alliance for Early Childhood Finance and Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA), contributed to the development of the cost calculator methodology that preceded the online tool, and was funded by the Office of Child Care through the support of the Child Care Technical Assistance Network. The tool helps policymakers understand the costs associated with delivering high quality child care and can inform payment rate setting.
In our 2013 NPRM, ACF proposed allowing Lead Agencies to use an alternative rate-setting methodology in lieu of a market rate study. We received many comments opposed to the proposal, including those expressing concern that alternative methodologies were an unproven approach that may be used to justify existing low payment rates. Due to concern about alternative methodologies and because they are new (in comparison to the long-standing use of market rate surveys), we propose that any alternative methodology used by a Lead Agency must receive advance approval by ACF. To obtain approval, we anticipate that the Lead Agency will need to demonstrate how the alternative methodology provides a sound basis for setting payment rates that promote equal access and support a basic level of health, safety and quality, as discussed below. ACF approval will only be necessary if the Lead Agency plans to
We propose adding paragraph (d) based on the updated law, which requires that the market rate survey reflect variations by geographic location, provider, and child's age. We propose applying the same requirement to any alternative methodology used by a Lead Agency. Lead Agencies must include in their Plan how and why they differentiate their rates based on these factors.
We propose adding paragraph (e) that reflects new statutory language requiring the Lead Agency to consult with the State's Early Childhood Advisory Council or similar coordinating body, child care directors, local child care resource and referral agencies, and other appropriate entities prior to conducting a market rate survey
In accordance with §§ 98.81(b)(5) and 98.83(d)(1)(v), we propose to exempt Tribal grantees from the requirement to conduct a market rate survey or alternative methodology. However, in their CCDF Plans, Tribes must still describe their payment rates; how they are established; and how they support quality and, where applicable, cultural and linguistic appropriateness. Tribes, at their option, may still conduct a market rate survey or alternative methodology or use the State's market rate survey or alternative methodology when setting payment rates.
We propose adding language that would require Lead Agencies to indicate in their report the estimated price or cost of care necessary to support child care providers' implementation of the health, safety, and quality requirements at §§ 98.41, 98.42, 98.43, and 98.44, including any relevant variation by geographic location, category of provider, or age of child. We expect that payment rates,
Section 658E(c)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act requires Lead Agencies to set payment rates in accordance with the result of the market rate survey or alternative methodology, taking into consideration the cost of providing higher quality care. We interpret this statutory provision to mean that Lead Agencies must use results of the most
The preamble to the 1998 Final Rule reminds Lead Agencies of the general principle that Federal subsidy funds cannot pay more for services than is charged to the general public for the same service. (63 FR 39959). While this principle remains in effect, we are clarifying that Lead Agencies may pay amounts above the provider's private pay rate to support quality. A Lead Agency also may peg a higher payment rate to the provider's cost of doing business at a given level of quality. For example, an analysis of the cost of providing high quality care (
In paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii), we propose new parameters for determining whether payment rates are set at levels that allow eligible families equal access to child care that is comparable to child care access by families who are not eligible for CCDF. We propose, as mentioned above, that Lead Agencies set payment rates,
Currently, nearly all Lead Agencies set rate ceilings that are below the 75th percentile and in many cases significantly below that benchmark. This is of great concern to ACF both because inadequate rates may violate the statutory requirement for equal access and because CCDF is serving a large number of vulnerable children who would benefit from access to high quality care and for whom payment rates even higher than the 75th percentile may be necessary to afford access to such care. Low rates simply do not provide sufficient resources to cover costs associated with the provision of high quality care or to attract and retain qualified caregivers, teachers, and directors. Low rates may also impact the willingness of child care providers to serve CCDF children thereby restricting access. Currently, even in States and Territories that pay higher rates for higher quality care, base rates are so inadequate that even the highest payment levels are often below the 75th percentile. While rates vary by category of care, locality, and other factors, 22 States/Territories reported in their FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans they had at least some base rates below the 10th percentile of a market rate survey. This means that CCDF families are unable to access a significant portion of the child care market, including higher quality care accessed by families with incomes over 85 percent of SMI.
While we are not requiring that Lead Agencies pay providers at the 75th percentile, we strongly discourage Lead Agencies from paying providers less than the 75th percentile. Further, Lead Agencies that set rates below the 75th percentile would be required to demonstrate that their payment rates allow CCDF families to purchase care that is of comparable quality to care that is available to families with incomes above 85 percent of SMI. This should include data about the quality of care that CCDF families can purchase and that is available to families above 85 percent of SMI. For example, a State could provide data on the share of licensed providers in the State or service area that meet established quality benchmarks, as well as the share of CCDF providers meeting those standards and the share of children receiving CCDF in care that meets an established quality level. States could use information on QRIS participation and ratings, national accreditation or other quality benchmarks for providers.
ACF intends to enhance its monitoring of rates through the CCDF Plan approval process. ACF may deny Plans or take penalties under the equal access provision of this law if base rates do not give access to a minimum level of quality. Lead Agencies that set their rates at the 75th percentile of the most recent market rate survey will be assured approval by ACF that rates provide equal access. ACF will apply scrutiny in its review to rates set below that threshold, as well as to rates that appear to be below a level to meet minimum quality standards based on alternate methodologies.
We recognize that at the present time in many States and Territories the available quality data on child care providers is limited and we are requesting comments on how to best assess the comparability of child care quality between that accessed by families receiving CCDF and that available to families above 85 percent of SMI, including parameters and requirements for any data collection. ACF intends to examine the integrity of reported data and provide assistance to Lead Agencies in assessing comparability. We are also seeking comments on a possible benchmark or metric for measuring the adequacy of rates set by alternative methodologies, as comparable to the 75th percentile. Finally, any alternative methodology or market rate survey that results in stagnant or reduced payment rates will result in further increased scrutiny by ACF in its review, and the Lead Agency will need to provide a justification for how such rates result in improving access to higher quality child care.
We propose adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii) in accordance with the new statutory requirement for Lead Agencies to take into consideration the cost of providing higher quality care than was provided prior to the reauthorization when setting payment rates. Lead Agencies may take different approaches to meeting this provision, including increasing base payment rates, using pay differentials or higher rates for higher quality care, or other strategies, such as direct grants or contracts that pay higher rates for child care services that meet higher quality standards. As stated, ACF acknowledges that rates above the benchmark of 75th percentile may be required to support the costs associated with high quality care.
We propose adding paragraph (f)(2)(iv) reflecting new language in the law that requires Lead Agencies set payment rates without reducing the number of families receiving assistance, to the extent practicable. ACF recognizes the limitations of Lead Agencies' abilities to increase rates under resource constraints and that Lead Agencies must balance competing priorities. We recognize that greater budgetary resources are needed to serve all children eligible for CCDF. While we do not want to see a reduction in children served, it is our belief that current payment rates for CCDF-funded care in many cases do not support equal access to a minimum level of quality for CCDF children and should be increased.
Current regulations prohibit Lead Agencies from differentiating payment rates based on a “family's eligibility status or circumstance”. This provision is intended to prevent Lead Agencies from establishing different payment rates for child care for low-income working families as payments for children from TANF families or families in education or training. We believe that such a prohibition remains relevant and that differentiating payment rates, based on an eligibility status (such as receiving TANF or participation in education or training), would violate the equal access provision. In order to clarify that this prohibition does not conflict with the ability of Lead Agencies to differentiate payments based on the needs of particular children, for example paying higher rates for higher quality care for children experiencing homelessness, we have removed the word “circumstance” in paragraph (g) so that this provision only refers to the conditions of eligibility and not the needs or circumstance of children. We do not believe that setting lower payment rates based on the eligibility status of the child is consistent with Congress' intent to allow for differentiation of rates or that establishing different payment rates for low-income families and TANF families furthers the goals of the Act or support access to high quality care for low-income children.
Finally, we propose, in paragraph (i), to add, “if the Lead Agency acted in accordance with” this regulation, to the existing language that nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private right of action in accordance with statutory language.
Section 658E(c)(4)(C) of the Act states that Lead Agencies may not be prevented from differentiating payment rates based on geographic location of child care providers, age or particular needs of children (such as children with
We propose amending the previous regulatory language, now § 98.45(k) by adding language that the cost-sharing should not be a barrier to families receiving assistance. Lead Agencies have flexibility in establishing their sliding fee scales and determining what constitutes a cost barrier for families. The preamble to the 1998 Final Rule established the Federal benchmark of 10 percent of family income as an affordable copayment. As in the past, we are declining from defining affordable in regulation but we are revising this established benchmark through this preamble. It is our view that a fee that is no more than 7 percent of a family's income is a better measure of affordability. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percent of monthly income families spend on child care on average has stayed constant between 1997 and 2011, at around 7 percent. Poor families on average spend approximately four times the share of their income on child care compared to higher income families.
According to § 98.21(a)(3), as proposed, Lead Agencies would be unable to increase family copayments within the minimum 12-month eligibility period unless the family's income is in a graduated phaseout of care as described at § 98.21(b)(2). When designing fee scales, we encourage Lead Agencies to consider how their fee scales address affordability for families at all income levels. Lead Agencies should ensure that small increases in earnings, during the graduated phaseout period, do not trigger large increases in copayments, in order to ensure stability for families as they improve their economic circumstance and transition off child care assistance.
In addition, we propose to add language to provide that Lead Agencies may not use the cost, price of care, or subsidy payment rate as a factor in setting co-payment amounts. This corrects a contradiction between the 1992 and 1998 preamble discussions. The 1992 preamble stated that “Grantees may take into account the cost of care in establishing a fee scale,” (57 FR 34380), while the 1998 preamble states that “As was stated in the preamble to the regulations published on August 4, 1992, basing fees on the cost or category of care is not allowed.” (63 FR 39960) This proposed change would correct this discrepancy by stating that Lead Agencies may not use the cost or price of care when setting their co-pay amounts, which could violate the statutory requirements to preserve equal access and parental choice by incentivizing families to use lower cost care.
Finally, current CCDF regulations at § 98.42(c) state that “Lead Agencies may waive contributions from families whose incomes are at or below the poverty level for a family of the same size.” This provision would remain in effect and we encourage Lead Agencies to implement it. We propose amending this section so that Lead Agencies can waive contributions from families “that meet other criteria established by the Lead Agency.” Lead Agencies have often requested more flexibility to waive copayments beyond just those families at or below the poverty level. This change would increase flexibility to determine waiver criteria that the Lead Agency believes would best serve subsidy families. For example, a Lead Agency could use this flexibility to target particularly vulnerable populations, such as homeless families, migrant workers, or families receiving TANF. Lead Agencies may choose to waive copayments for children in Head Start and Early Head Start, which is an important alignment strategy. Head Start and Early Head Start are provided at no cost to eligible families, who cannot be required to pay any fees for Head Start services. Waiving CCDF fees for families served by both Head Start/Early Head Start and CCDF can support continuity for families. While we are allowing Lead Agencies to define criteria for waiving co-payments, the criteria must be described and approved in the CCDF Plan. Lead Agencies may not use this revision as an authority to eliminate the co-payment requirement for all families receiving CCDF assistance. We continue to expect that Lead Agencies would have co-payment requirements for a substantial number of families receiving CCDF subsidies. We included this proposal on increasing Lead Agency flexibility on waiving co-payments in our 2013 NPRM and many commenters supported this policy revision.
We propose adding paragraph (l) that requires Lead Agencies to prohibit child care providers receiving CCDF funds from charging parents additional mandatory fees above the family co-payment based on the Lead Agencies' sliding fee scale. According to the 2015-2016 CCDF Plans, 41 Lead Agencies have policies allowing providers to charge families the difference between the maximum payment rate and their private pay rate. In some States/Territories, parents may be asked to pay the difference only in certain circumstances or for certain types of providers. For example, Lead Agencies that allow providers to charge parents may prohibit providers from charging families who are exempt from copayments, or may only allow providers who have met an established quality level to charge families the difference in rates. (Minton, S., Durham, C., and Giannarelli, L.,
In addition to payment rates, policies governing provider payments are an important aspect of equal access and supporting the ability of providers to provide high quality care. Currently, many States closely link provider payments to the hours a child attends care. A child care provider may not be paid for days or hours when a child is absent, resulting in a loss of income. Moreover, the instability that results from such payment practices makes it difficult for providers to meet fixed costs of providing child care (such as rent, utilities and salaries) and to plan for investments in quality. Surveys and focus groups with child care providers have found that some providers experience problems with late payments, including issues with receiving the full payment on time and difficulties resolving payment disputes. (Adams, G., Rohacek, M., and Snyder, K.,
Generally accepted payment practices typically require parents who pay privately for child care to pay their provider a set fee based on their child's enrollment, often in advance of when services are provided. Payments are not altered due to child absences. While Lead Agencies have flexibility to determine payment processes for subsidies, we believe that it is appropriate to set some Federal benchmarks for what constitutes timely payments, delinking of payments and absent days, and generally accepted payment practices. We are interested in receiving comments on whether these or other benchmarks should be included in a final rule.
At § 98.45(m)(1), we propose that Lead Agencies ensure timely provider payments by
At § 98.45(m)(2), we propose three examples for how Lead Agencies could meet the statutory requirement to support the fixed costs of providing child care services by delinking provider payment rates from an eligible child's occasional absences due to holidays or unforeseen circumstances such as illness, to the extent practicable. This may include: (1) By paying providers based on a child's enrollment, rather than attendance; (2) by providing a full payment to providers as long as a child attends for 85 percent of the authorized time; or (3) by providing full payment to providers as long as a child is absent for five or fewer days in a four week period. We recognize that these three examples represent different levels of stringency; however, we have provided flexibility in acknowledgement of the ways that States structure their policies. Lead Agencies that do not choose one of these three approaches must describe their approach in the State Plan, including how the approach is not weaker than one of the three listed above.
We are establishing 85 percent, or five or fewer days, as a benchmark for when providers should receive a full payment, regardless of the reason for the absence (
We are proposing using a common threshold to encourage alignment and because it seems to reasonably allow for routine absences, such as due to illness, that occur among children. Lead Agencies retain discretion to allow for
The law requires Lead Agencies to implement this provision “to the extent practicable.” We interpret this language as setting a limit on the extent to which Lead Agencies must act, rather than providing a justification for not acting at all. We are not requiring Lead Agencies to pay for all days when children are absent, although that would most closely mirror private pay practices, but each Lead Agency is expected to implement a policy that accomplishes the goals of the statute. A refusal to implement any such policies as being “impracticable” will not be accepted. We are asking for comment on alternatives to the three identified approaches that States may want to use to meet this requirement.
At § 98.45(m)(3), we propose minimum requirements for complying with the provision of “generally-accepted payment practices.” Unless a Lead Agency is able to prove that the following policies are
In addition, there are certain generally-accepted payment practices that we propose to require of all Lead Agencies. In paragraphs (m)(4) through (6) we propose requiring Lead Agencies to ensure that child care providers receive payment for any services in accordance with a payment agreement or authorization for services, receive prompt notice of changes to a family's eligibility status that may impact payment, and establish timely appeal and resolution processes for any payment inaccuracies and disputes. While these practices are unique to the subsidy system, they are analogous to generally-accepted payment practices in the private pay market, such as establishing contracts between providers and parents and providing adequate advance notice of changes that impact payments. We believe the appeals and resolution process is important in fairness to providers.
Finally, Lead Agencies should ensure that payment practices for each type of provider reflect generally accepted payment practices for such providers in order to ensure that families have access to a range of child care options. We note that these benchmarks represent
The reauthorization included several provisions to increase access to CCDF services for children and families experiencing homelessness. Consistent with the spirit of these additions, we are proposing to add “children experiencing homelessness” to the Priority for Services section at § 98.46.
Lead Agencies have flexibility as to how they offer priority to these populations, including by prioritizing enrollment, waiving copayments, paying higher rates for access to higher quality care, or using grants or contracts to reserve slots for priority populations. Section 658E(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act requires ACF to report to Congress on whether Lead Agencies are prioritizing services to children experiencing homelessness, children with special needs, and families with very low incomes.
The Section 658E(c)(2)(Q) of the Act also requires Lead Agencies to describe the process by which they propose to prioritize investments for increasing access to high quality child care for children of families in areas that have significant concentrations of poverty and unemployment and lack such programs. We propose reiterating this requirement in the proposed rule in § 98.46(b). It is our interpretation that the investments referred to in the statute may include direct child care services provided under § 98.50(a) and activities to improve the quality of child care services under § 98.50(c).
While Lead Agencies have flexibility in implementing this new statutory language, ACF encourages Lead Agencies to target investments based on analysis of data showing poverty, unemployment and supply gaps. Lead Agencies may also consider how to best support parent's access to workforce development and employment opportunities (such as allowing job search as a qualifying activity for assistance and allowing broader access to assistance for education and training by reducing eligibility restrictions), which would support the child care needs of families in areas with high poverty and unemployment.
Subpart F of CCDF regulations establishes allowable uses of CCDF funds related to the provision of child care services, activities to improve the quality of child care, administrative costs, Matching fund requirements, restrictions on the use of funds, and cost allocation.
This proposed rule includes a technical change to § 98.50(a) which we propose to redesignate as new paragraph (g) at § 98.50. The proposed change requires Lead Agencies to spend a substantial portion of the funds remaining after applying provisions at paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section to provide
We also make a clarifying change at current paragraph (b) in this section, which we propose to redesignate as paragraph (a). We propose to specify that proposed paragraph (a) is describing use of funds for
Section 658G(a)(2) of the CCDBG Act increases the percentage of total CCDF funds (including mandatory funding) that Lead Agencies must spend on activities to improve the quality of child care services. Paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (f), respectively, require Lead Agencies to spend a minimum of nine percent of funds (phased in over five years) on activities to improve the quality of care and three percent (beginning in FY 2017) to improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers; not more than five percent for administrative activities; not less than 70 percent of the Mandatory and Matching funds to meet the needs of families receiving TANF, families transitioning from TANF, and families at-risk of becoming dependent on
According to preliminary FY 2013 CCDF administrative data, approximately 90 percent of children receiving CCDF-funded child care were served through certificates. According to analysis of the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, only 20 States and Territories provide services through grants or contracts for child care slots, meaning parents in the majority of States/Territories do not have a choice other than certificates.
While child care certificates may also support parental choice, demand-side mechanisms like certificates are only fully effective when there is an adequate supply of child care. Grants or contracts can play a role in building the supply and availability of child care, particularly high quality care, in underserved areas and for special populations in order to expand parental choice. For example, Lead Agencies may use grants or contracts to incentivize providers to open in an area they might not otherwise consider, or to serve children for whom care is more costly. Grants and contracts are paid directly to the provider so long as slots are adequately filled, which is a more predictable funding source than vouchers or certificates. Stable funding can incent providers to pay the fixed costs associated with providing high quality child care, such as adequate salaries to attract qualified staff, or to provide higher cost care, such as for infants and toddlers or children with special needs, or to locate in low-income or rural communities.
We want to emphasize that this proposed addition is not meant to limit or discourage the use of certificates to provide assistance to families. As noted in the Senate Committee report, certificates “offer eligible parents the broadest array of options and afford parents maximum choice.” (S. Rept. No. 113-138, at 12). We expect a substantial number of CCDF children would continue to be served through certificates or vouchers. However, we believe a mixed funding system that includes certificates, grants or contracts, and private pay families is the most sustainable option for the CCDF program and for child care providers. Further, a mixed funding system is a straightforward interpretation of language in the CCDBG statute, which clearly states that parents are to be given the option of child care funded by grants and contracts, as well as certificates. While Section 658Q(b) of the Act provides that “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed in a manner (1) to favor or promote the use of grants and contracts for the receipt of child care services under this subchapter over the use of child care certificates,” Congress chose not to change the language at Section 658E(c)(2)(A) of the Act, requiring Lead Agencies to, “provide assurances that (i) the parent or parents of each eligible child within the State who receives or is offered child care service for which assistance is provided under this subchapter, are given the option either—(I) to enroll such child with a child care provider that has a grant or contract for the provision of such services; or (II) to receive a child care certificate.”
Lead Agencies are strongly encouraged to contract with multiple types of settings, including child care centers and family child care networks or systems, to maximize parental choice. Family child care networks or systems are groups of associated family child care providers who pool funds to share some costs of operating and staff who provide supports to providers often to manage their businesses and enhance quality. Contracting directly with family child care networks allows for more targeted use of funds with providers that benefit from additional supports that can improve quality. Research shows affiliation with a staffed family child care network is a strong predictor of quality in family child care homes, when providers receive visits, training, materials, and other supports from the network through a specially trained coordinator. (Bromer, J., et al.,
Faith-based or religious organizations may be funded through a grant or contract, although they may not use the funding for religious purposes. Pursuant to existing regulations at § 98.54(d), which we propose to redesignate as § 98.56(d), funds provided through grants or contracts to providers may not be expended for any sectarian purpose or activity, including sectarian worship or instruction. These provisions are designed to promote the participation of faith-based organizations in the CCDF program in a manner consistent with applicable Federal statutes. In many States, faith-based organizations play a key role in the delivery of child care services, and this proposed rule fully supports their continued participation.
We do not expect Lead Agencies currently using direct grants or contracts to necessarily make changes to current grants or contracts. However, we strongly encourage these Lead Agencies to examine their current approach to ensure grants and contracts are focused on increasing the supply of high quality care, especially for underserved populations and communities.
We also propose to revise paragraph (c), which relates to the quality activity funds. First, the proposed rule would require use of the quality funds to align with an assessment of the Lead Agency's need to carry out such services. As part of this assessment, we expect Lead Agencies to review current expenditures on quality, assess the need for quality investment in comparison with revised purposes of the law, including the placement of more low-income children in high quality child care, and determine the most effective and efficient distribution of funding among and across the categories authorized by the statute. Second, the activities must include measurable indicators of progress in accordance with the required measures proposed at
We propose to replace current paragraph (f) with new regulatory language to restate requirements included in the Act. The proposed regulatory language would require at least 70 percent of any Discretionary funds left after the Lead Agency sets aside funding for quality and administrative activities to be used to fund direct services.
We propose a new section at § 98.51 that codifies new statutory language at 658E(c)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, which requires Lead Agencies to spend at least some CCDF funds on activities that improve access to quality child care services for children experiencing homelessness. The proposed regulatory language would require Lead Agencies to have procedures for allowing children experiencing homelessness to be determined eligible and enroll prior to completion of all required documentation. The proposed regulation also clarifies that if a child experiencing homelessness is found ineligible, after full documentation, any CCDF payments made prior to the final eligibility determination should not be considered errors or improper payments and any payments owed to a child care provider for services should be paid. Lead Agencies would also be expected to provide training and technical assistance on identifying and serving children and families experiencing homelessness and outreach strategies.
The law authorizes use of CCDF funds for child care resource and referral services to assist with consumer education and specifies functions of such entities. Consistent with this provision, this proposed rule would revise § 98.52 to include statutory language that allows Lead Agencies to spend funds to establish or support a system of local or regional child care resource and referral organizations that is coordinated, to the extent determined by the Lead Agency, by a statewide public or private nonprofit, community-based or regionally based, local child care resource and referral organization. The statute permits, but does not require, Lead Agencies to fund a child care resource and referral system. We recommend Lead Agencies give consideration to the expanded requirements for consumer education at § 98.33 and how best to meet those requirements, including whether existing child care resource and referral agencies and/or additional partners can assist in reaching low-income parents of children receiving subsidies, providers, and the general public.
Proposed paragraph (b) specifies a list of resource and referral activities that the statute says should be at the direction of the Lead Agency. Therefore, if the Lead Agency does not need the child care resource and referral organization to carry out a certain activity, the organization does not have to carry out that activity.
As noted above, reauthorization increased the percent of expenditures Lead Agencies must spend on quality activities. We strongly encourage Lead Agencies to develop a carefully considered framework for quality expenditures that takes into account the activities specified by the law, and uses data on gaps in quality of care and the workforce, as well as effectiveness of existing quality enhancement efforts, to target these resources. Lead Agencies should also coordinate quality activities with the statutory requirement to spend at least three percent of expenditures on improving quality and access for infants and toddlers, beginning in FY 2017.
Section 658G(b) of the Act includes a new list of 10 allowable quality activities and requires that Lead Agencies spend their quality funds on at least one of the 10 activities. This proposed rule incorporates and expands on the list of allowable activities at § 98.53(a) with details described below.
1.
(a) Offering training, professional development and post-secondary education that relate to the use of scientifically based, developmentally, culturally, and age appropriate strategies to promote all of the major domains of child development and learning, including those related to nutritional nutrition and physical activity and specialized training for working with populations of children, including different age groups, English learners, children with disabilities, and Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the Act.
(b) Incorporating the effective use of data to guide program improvement and improve opportunities for caregivers, teachers and directors to advance on their progression of training, professional development, and postsecondary education. We expanded upon the statutory language to include opportunities for caregivers, teachers and directors to advance professionally as there are a variety of data collected (such as information from licensing inspectors, quality rating and improvement systems, or accreditation assessments) that can guide program improvement by helping providers make adjustments in the physical environment and teaching practices.
(c) Including effective behavior management strategies and training, including positive behavior interventions and support models for birth to school-age or age-appropriate, that promote positive social and emotional development and reduce challenging behaviors, including reducing suspensions and expulsions of children under age five for such behaviors.
(d) Providing training and outreach on engaging parents and families in culturally and linguistically appropriate
(e) Providing training in nutrition and physical activity needs of young children.
(f) Providing training or professional development for caregivers, teachers and directors regarding the early neurological development of children; and
(g) Connecting caregivers, teachers and directors of child care providers with resources to assist them in pursuing relevant postsecondary education.
2.
3.
(a) Support and assess the quality of child care providers in the State, Territory, or Tribe. QRIS should include training and technical assistance to child care providers to help them improve the quality of care and on-site quality assessments appropriate to the setting;
(b) Build on licensing standards and other regulatory standards for such providers. We encourage Lead Agencies to incorporate their licensing standards and other regulatory standards as the first level or tier in their QRIS. Making licensing the first tier facilitates incorporating all licensed providers into the QRIS;
(c) Be designed to improve the quality of different types of child care providers and services. We encourage Lead Agencies to implement QRIS that are applicable to all child care sectors and address the needs of all children, including children of all ages, families of all cultural-socio-economic backgrounds, and practitioners. One way to provide support for different types of care is providing quality funds to established family child care networks that can work with individual family child care providers to improve the quality in those settings.
(d) Describe the safety of child care facilities. Health and safety are the foundation of quality, and should not be treated as wholly separate requirements. Including the safety of child care facilities as part of a QRIS helps to reinforce this connection.
(e) Build the capacity of early childhood programs and communities to support parents' and families' understanding of the early childhood system and the ratings of the programs in which the child is enrolled. This capacity may be built through a robust consumer and provider education system, as described at § 98.33. Lead Agencies should provide clear explanations of quality ratings to parents. In addition to the Web site, Lead Agencies may have providers post their quality rating or have information explaining the rating system available at child care centers and family child care homes. This information should also be accessible to parents with low literacy or limited English proficiency;
(f) Provide to the maximum extent practicable, financial incentives and other supports designed to expand the full diversity of child care options and help child care providers improve the quality of services. Research has found that significant financial incentives are needed to make the quality improvements necessary for providers to move up levels in the QRIS. In order to ensure that providers continue to improve their quality and help move more low-income children into high quality child care, we recommend Lead Agencies to make these incentives a focus of investment; and
(g) Accommodate a variety of distinctive approaches to early childhood education and care, including but not limited to, those practices in faith-based settings, community based settings, child-centered settings, or similar settings that offer a distinctive approach to early childhood development. Parental choice is a very important part of the CCDF program, and parents often consider a variety of factors, including religious affiliation, when choosing a child care provider. Lead Agencies should take these factors into account when setting quality standards and levels in their QRIS, as well as designing how the information will be made available to the public.
4.
(a) Establishing or expanding high quality community or neighborhood-based family and child development centers, which may serve as resources to child care providers in order to improve the quality of early childhood services provided to infants and toddlers from low-income families and to help eligible child care providers improve their capacity to offer high quality, age-appropriate care to infants and toddlers from low-income families. We interpret
(b) Establishing or expanding the operation of community or neighborhood-based family child care networks. As discussed earlier, established family child care networks can help improve the quality of family child care providers. Lead Agencies may choose to use the quality funds to help networks cover overheard and quality enhancement costs, such as providing access to coaches or health consultants;
(c) Promoting and expanding child care providers' ability to provide developmentally appropriate services for infants and toddlers;
(d) If applicable, developing infant and toddler components within the Lead Agency's QRIS for child care providers for infants and toddlers, or the development of infant and toddler components in the child care licensing regulations or early learning and development guidelines;
(e) Improving the ability of parents to access transparent and easy to understand consumer education about high quality infant and toddler care as described at § 98.33; and
(f) Carrying out other activities determined by the Lead Agency to improve the quality of infant and toddler care provided, and for which there is evidence that the activities will lead to improved infant and toddler health and safety, infant and toddler cognitive and physical development, or infant and toddler well-being, including providing health and safety training (including training in safe sleep practices, first aid, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation for providers and caregivers).
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
Currently, States and Territories report their categorical expenditures through the ACF 696 reporting form. This form is used to determine if the Lead Agency has met the minimum quality expenditure amount and is referenced at § 98.65(g) in this proposed rule. We expect to continue to use the ACF 696 form to determine whether a Lead Agency has met expenditure requirements at § 98.50(b), including both the quality set-aside and the set-aside to improve quality for infants and toddlers.
We propose to capture information on the quality activities and the measures and data used to determine progress in improving the quality of child care services through a Quality Progress Report. This report would replace the Quality Performance Report that was an appendix to the Plan. The Quality Performance Report has played an important role in increasing transparency on quality spending. The new Quality Progress Report would continue to gather detailed information about quality activities, but include more specific data points to reflect the new quality activities required by the statute. The Quality Progress Report would be a new annual data collection and would require a public comment and response period as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act process, which will give Lead Agencies and others the opportunity to comment on the specifics of the report.
As part of the Quality Progress Report, we propose to include a requirement that States and Territories describe any changes to regulations, enforcement mechanisms, or other policies addressing health and safety based on an annual review and assessment of serious injuries and any deaths occurring in child care programs serving children receiving child care assistance, and in other regulated and unregulated child cares and family child care homes, to the extent possible. This proposed provision complements § 98.41(d)(4), discussed earlier in the preamble, which requires child care providers to report to a designated State, Territorial, or Tribal entity any serious injuries or deaths of children occurring in child care. States and Territories would consider any serious injuries and deaths reported by providers and other information as part of their annual review and assessment. This report also works in conjunction with the proposed requirements at § 98.33(a)(1)(iv) that Lead Agencies post provider-specific information about the number of serious injuries and deaths of children that occurred while in the care of that provider and at § 98.33(a)(3) that Lead Agencies post the aggregate number of deaths and serious injuries to their consumer education Web sites.
This proposed provision would require Lead Agencies to list and describe the annual number of child injuries and fatalities in child care and to describe the results of an annual review of all serious child injuries and deaths occurring in child care. The primary purpose of this change is the prevention of future tragedies. Sometimes, incidents of child injury or death in child care are preventable. For example, one State recently reviewed the circumstances surrounding a widely-publicized, tragic death in child care and identified several opportunities to improve State monitoring and enforcement that might otherwise have identified the very unsafe circumstances surrounding the child's death and prevented the tragedy. The State moved quickly to make several changes to its monitoring procedures. It is important to learn from these tragedies to better protect children in the future. Lead Agencies should review all serious child injuries and deaths in child care, including lapses in health and safety (
The utility of this assessment is reliant upon the Lead Agency obtaining accurate, detailed information about any child injuries and deaths that occur in child care. Therefore, ACF strongly encourages Lead Agencies to work with the State or Territory entity responsible for child care licensing in conducting the review and also with their established Child Death Review systems and with the National Center for the Review and Prevention of Child Death Review (
Lead Agencies also may work in conjunction with the National Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, established in 2013 by the Protect Our Kids Act. (Pub. L. 112-275) The Commission, consisting of 12 members appointed by the President and Congress, will work to develop recommendations to reduce the number of children who die from abuse and neglect. The Commission will hold hearings and gather information about current Federal programs and prevention efforts in order to recommend a comprehensive strategy to reduce and prevent child abuse and neglect fatalities nationwide. Although this Commission will only be studying a subsection of child injuries and deaths, it is important that the commissioners examine the issue of child abuse and neglect in child care settings.
Section 658E(c)(3)(C) of the Act and regulations proposed at redesignated § 98.54(a) prohibit Lead Agencies from spending more than five percent of CCDF funds for administrative activities, such as salaries and related costs of administrative staff and travel costs. Section 98.54(b) provides that this limitation applies only to States and Territories. (Note that a 15 percent limitation applies to Tribes under § 98.83(g)). At § 98.54(b) we propose a list of activities that should not be counted towards the limitation on administrative expenditures. As stated in the preamble to the 1998 CCDF Final Rule, the Conference Agreement (H.R. Rep. 104-725 at 411) that accompanied the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 indicated that these activities should not be considered administrative costs. We propose to incorporate this list into the regulation itself for clarity and easy reference.
We have received questions from Lead Agencies to clarify whether activities performed through sub-recipients or contractors are subject to the five percent administrative cost limitation. Our interpretation is that sub-recipients (contractors or sub-grantees) that receive funds from the Lead Agency are not individually bound by this requirement. However, the Lead Agency continues to be responsible for ensuring that the program complies with all Federal requirements and is required to oversee the expenditures of funds by sub-recipients. While we do not, as a technical matter, separately apply the administrative cap to funds provided to each sub-recipient, the Lead Agency must ensure that the total amount of CCDF funds expended on administrative activities—regardless of whether it is expended by the Lead Agency directly or via sub-grant, contract, or other mechanism—does not exceed the administrative cost limit.
To clarify, the administrative costs cap only applies to activities related to administering the CCDF program in a State, Territory, or Tribe. It does not apply to administration of child care services in an individual child care center or family child care home. Any costs related to administration of services by a provider, even if that provider is being paid through a contract, are considered direct services. However, if a sub-recipient provides services that are part of administering the CCDF program, as defined at § 98.54(a) as redesignated, then those administrative costs would count toward the administrative cost limit.
Determining whether a particular service or activity provided by a sub-recipient under a contract, sub-grant, or other mechanisms would count as an administrative activity towards the five percent administrative cost limitation depends on the function or nature of the contract, sub-grant, or other mechanism. If a Lead Agency provides a contract or sub-grant for direct services, the entire cost of the contract could potentially be counted as direct services if there is no countable administrative component. On the other hand, if the entire sub-grant or contract provided services to administer the CCDF program (
Current CCDF regulations at § 98.54(b)(1), which we propose to redesignate as § 98.56(b)(1), indicate that States and local agencies, may not spend CCDF funds for the purchase or improvement of land or for the purchase, construction, or permanent improvement of any building or facility. However, funds may be expended for minor remodeling, and for upgrading child care facilities to assure that providers meet State and local child care standards, including applicable health and safety requirements. Tribal Lead Agencies may request approval to use CCDF funds for construction and major renovation of child care facilities (§ 98.84).
We propose to modify § 98.54(b)(1), redesignated as § 98.56(b)(1), to indicate that improvements or upgrades to a facility that are not specified under the definitions of construction or major renovation at § 98.2 may be considered minor remodeling and are, therefore, not prohibited. This proposed addition would formally incorporate ACF's long-standing interpretation into regulatory language.
When we proposed this addition in the 2013 NPRM, several commenters requested the regulation clarify that funds may be used to ensure facilities comply with the on-going requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101,
We propose making a technical change at § 96.54(e) by adding that CCDF may not be used as the non-Federal share for other Federal grant programs,
The focus of subpart G is to ensure proper financial management of the CCDF program, both at the Federal level by HHS and the Lead Agency level. The proposed changes to this section include: Addressing the amount of CCDF funds the Secretary may set-aside for technical assistance, research and evaluation, a national toll-free hotline and Web site; incorporating targeted funds that have been included in appropriations language (but are not in the current regulations); inclusion of the details of required financial reporting by Lead Agencies; and clarifying requirements related to obligations. Lastly, we propose a new section on program integrity.
Reauthorization added greater specificity to the Act regarding the provision of technical assistance. Specifically, Section 658I(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance, such as technical assistance to improve the business practices of child care providers, (which may include providing technical assistance on a reimbursable basis) which shall be provided by qualified experts on practices grounded in scientifically valid research, where appropriate. Section 658I(a)(4) requires the Secretary to disseminate, for voluntary informational purposes, information on practices that scientifically valid research indicates are most successful in improving the quality of programs that receive CCDF assistance. Section 658G requires the Secretary to offer technical assistance which may include technical assistance through the use of grants or cooperative agreements, on activities funded by quality improvement expenditures. Section 658O(a)(4) indicates that the Secretary shall reserve up to
Section 658O(a)(5) of the Act also provides that the Secretary may reserve up to
Over the years, this research funding has increased our knowledge of what child care services work best, has disseminated that knowledge throughout the country, and has been integral to improving the quality of care provided to children. It has funded numerous research projects, including the recent implementation of the National Survey of Early Care and Education to provide national estimates of utilization of child care and early education, parental preferences and choices of care, and characteristics of programs and of the teaching and care-giving staff. This research funding will be critical in informing and evaluating the implementation of the reauthorized statute and these implementing regulations.
In addition, section 658O(a)(3) of the Act indicates that the Secretary may reserve up to $1.5 million for the operation of a national toll-free hotline and Web site. Annual appropriations law has provided funding for a national hotline and Web site in prior years, but this funding is now authorized through the Act with an expanded scope and requirements. As authorized by section 658L(b), this national hotline and Web site will develop and disseminate publicly available child care consumer education information for parents, and help parents access safe and quality child care services in their community. The hotline and Web site will also allow persons to report suspected child abuse or neglect, or violations of health and safety requirements, occurring in child care settings.
In this proposed rule at § 98.60(b), we do not specify a particular funding amount for technical assistance, research and evaluation, or the national hotline and Web site. Rather, we say that “a portion” of CCDF funds will be made available for these purposes. Because appropriations law has addressed the amount of funding for some of these activities in the past, we want to leave flexibility to accommodate any future decisions by Congress. As we indicate in the proposed regulatory language, funding for these activities is subject to the availability of appropriations, and will be made in accordance with relevant statutory provisions and the apportionment of funds from the Office of Management and Budget.
The preamble to the August 4, 1992 CCDBG Regulations (57 FR 34395) helps clarify the intent of § 98.60(d). It states, “The requirement that State and Territorial grantees obligate their funds [within obligation timeframes] applies only to the State or Territorial grantee. The requirement does not extend to the Grantee's sub-grantees or contractors unless State or local laws or procedures require obligation in the same fiscal year.” It follows that, in the absence of State or local laws or procedure to the contrary, § 98.60(d)(6) would not apply when the issuance of a voucher or certificate is administered by a third party because the funds used to issue
Finally, we propose a number of technical changes. At § 98.60(d)(4)(ii), we update a reference to HHS regulations on expenditures and obligations to reflect new rules issued by HHS that implement the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal awards. At § 98.60(d)(6), we clarify that the provision regarding the obligation of funds used for certificates applies specifically “in instances where the Lead Agency issues child care certificates.” We also propose to make a technical change at § 98.60(h) to eliminate a reference to § 98.51(a)(2)(ii) of the regulation which would otherwise become obsolete since this proposed rule proposes to delete it. This technical change does not change the meaning or the substance of paragraph (h), which specifies that repayment of loans made to child care providers as part of a quality improvement activity may be made in cash or in services provided in-kind.
We propose a technical change at § 98.65(a) regarding the requirement for the Lead Agency to have an audit conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. In this paragraph, we propose to replace a reference to OMB Circular A-133 with a reference to 45 CFR part 75, subpart F, which is the new HHS regulation implementing the audit provisions in the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal awards.
We propose revising § 98.65(g), which currently provides that the Secretary shall require financial reports as necessary, to specify that States and Territories must submit quarterly expenditure reports for each fiscal year. Currently, States and Territories file quarterly expenditure reports (ACF-696); however, the current regulations do not describe this reporting in detail. Under proposed paragraph (h), States and Territories will be required to include the following information on expenditures of CCDF grant funds, including Discretionary (which includes any reallocated funds and funds transferred from the TANF block grant), Mandatory, and Matching funds; and State Matching and Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funds: (1) Child care administration; (2) Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF; (3) Direct services; (4) Non-direct services including: (i) Computerized information systems, (ii) Certificate program cost/eligibility determination, (iii) All other non-direct services; and (6) Such other information as specified by the Secretary.
We propose adding greater specificity to the regulation in light of the important role expenditure data play in ensuring compliance with the quality expenditure requirements at § 98.51(a), administrative cost cap at § 98.52(a), and obligation and liquidation deadlines at § 98.60(d). Additionally, expenditure data provide us with important details about how Lead Agencies are spending both their Federal and State CCDF funds, including what proportion of funds are being spent on direct services to families or how much has been invested in quality activities. These reporting requirements do not create an additional burden on Lead Agencies because we are simply updating the regulations to reflect current expenditure reporting processes.
At § 98.68(a) we propose to require Lead Agency internal controls to include processes to ensure sound fiscal management, processes to identify areas of risk, and regular evaluation of internal control activities. Examples of internal controls include practices that identify and prevent errors associated with recipient eligibility and provider payment such as: Checks and balances that ensure accuracy and adherence to procedures; automated checks for red flags or warning signs; and established protocols and procedures to ensure consistency and accountability. The
At § 98.68(b)(1) we propose to require Lead Agencies to describe in their Plan the processes that are in place to identify fraud and other program violations associated with recipient eligibility and provider payment. These processes may include, but are not limited to, record matching and database linkages, review of attendance and billing records, quality control or quality assurance reviews, and staff training on monitoring and audit processes. Lead Agencies may wish to use unique identifiers to crosscheck information provided by parents and providers across State and national data systems. For example, income reported on the application for child care assistance may be checked with State quarterly wage databases or other benefit programs (
We also propose regulatory language at § 98.68(b)(2) that would require Lead Agencies to describe in their Plans the processes that are in place to investigate and recover fraudulent payments and to impose sanctions on clients or providers in response to fraud. This provision complements the existing requirement at § 98.60(h)(1) that requires Lead Agencies to recover child care payments that are made as the result of fraud; these payments must be recovered from the party responsible for committing the fraud. The proposed new provision ensures that Lead Agencies have the necessary processes in place to identify fraud and program violations so that recovery can be pursued and so that the Lead Agency can better design practices and procedures that prevent fraud from occurring in the first place. We recommend that each Lead Agency include staff dedicated to program integrity efforts and that these staff should partner with law enforcement as appropriate to address fraud.
We urge Lead Agencies to carefully consider what constitutes fraud, particularly in the case of individual families. In cases not involving fraud, recouping overpayments from low-income families is often administratively inefficient, and contrary to the goal of promoting economic stability, particularly for families already living in vulnerable conditions. The parents typically did not receive a cash benefit, but rather the child care provider received reimbursement for the delivery of services. We are concerned about the ramifications for families if Lead Agencies try to recoup overpayments that resulted from small changes in family circumstances, such as modest changes in hours worked or income. The goals of CCDF—putting families on a pathway to financial stability and creating better developmental opportunities for children—are undermined by recoupment policies that burden low-income families with large debts. Given limited administrative resources, Lead Agencies should focus program integrity efforts on the largest areas of risk to the program, which tend to be intentional violations and fraud involving multiple parties.
At § 98.68(c) we propose to require Lead Agencies to describe in their Plans the procedures that are in place for documenting and verifying that children meet eligibility criteria at the time of eligibility determination and redetermination. Lead Agencies are responsible for ensuring that all children served in CCDF are eligible at the time of eligibility determination or redetermination. Lead Agencies should, at a minimum, verify or maintain documentation of the child's age, family income, and require proof that parents are engaged in eligible activities. Income documentation may include, but is not limited to, pay stubs, tax records, child support enforcement documentation, alimony court records, government benefit letters, and receipts for self-employed applicants. Documentation of participation in eligible activities may include school registration records, class schedules, or job training forms. Lead Agencies are encouraged to use automated verification systems and electronic recordkeeping practices to reduce paperwork. In addition, Lead Agencies may use client information collected and verified by other State programs (
Proposed § 98.68(c) would clarify that because a child meeting eligibility requirements at the most recent eligibility determination or redetermination is considered eligible during the period between redeterminations as described in § 98.21(a)(1), the Lead Agency shall pay any amount owed to a child care provider for services provided to such a child during this period in accordance with a payment agreement or
The program integrity efforts required by proposed § 98.68 can help ensure that limited program dollars are going to low-income eligible families for which assistance is intended; however, it is important to ensure that these efforts do not inadvertently reduce access for eligible families. The Administration has emphasized that efforts to reduce improper payments and fraud must be undertaken with consideration for impacts on eligible families seeking benefits. In November 2009, the President issued Executive Order 13520, which underscored the importance of reducing improper payments in Federal programs while protecting access to programs by their intended beneficiaries (74 FR 62201). It states, “The purpose of this order is to reduce improper payments by intensifying efforts to eliminate payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse in the major programs administered by the Federal Government, while continuing to ensure that Federal programs serve and provide access to their intended beneficiaries.”
It is important to have a strategic and intentional planning process to formalize mechanisms that promote program integrity and financial accountability while balancing quality and access for eligible families. Efforts to promote program integrity and financial accountability should not compromise child care access for eligible children and families. A foundation for accountability should be policies and procedures that help low-income parents' access child care assistance to support their work and training and promote children's success in school. Once a Lead Agency has established policies and procedures, steps should be taken to implement the program with fidelity and to include a variety of checks to detect areas both where there may be vulnerability to error or fraud and areas in which the system is failing to serve families well. Lead Agencies also can promote program integrity by clearly communicating specific policies to staff, parents, and providers. When policies are easily understood by the public and clearly communicated, parents and providers can better understand reporting requirements and deadlines.
Section 658K of the Act requires that Lead Agencies submit specified monthly case-level data (submitted on a quarterly basis) and annual aggregate data on the children and families receiving CCDF services. The Act included a number of changes to the administrative data reporting requirements for CCDF. To address these changes and to improve data collection and reporting, ACF has separately proposed changes to the CCDF quarterly family case-level administrative data report (ACF-801) and the CCDF annual aggregate data report (ACF-800). The proposed revisions were available for two rounds of public comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Proposed revisions in this Subpart reflect changes made to the ACF-801 and ACF-800 forms.
Section 98.71 describes administrative data elements that Lead Agencies are required to report to ACF, including basic demographic data on the children served, the reason they are in care, and the general type of care. The ACF-801 report includes a data element on the total monthly family income and family size used for determining eligibility. Current regulations as § 98.71(a)(1) do not include
At § 98.71(a)(2) we propose to add zip code data to both the family and the child care provider records. These new elements will allow States and Territories and ACF to identify the communities where CCDF families and providers are located, including the type and quality level of providers. Sections 658E(a)(2)(M) and 658E(a)(2)(Q) of the CCDBG Act require States and Territories to address the needs of certain populations regarding supply and access to high quality child care services in underserved areas including areas that have significant concentrations of poverty and unemployment.
Section 658K(a)(1)(E) of the Act prohibits the monthly case-level report from containing personally identifiable information. As a result, we are proposing to amend § 98.71(a)(13) by deleting Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and instead requiring a unique identifying number from the head of the family unit receiving assistance and from the child care provider. It is imperative that the unique identifier assigned to each head of household be used consistently over time—regardless of whether the family transitions on and off subsidy, or moves within the State or Territory. This will allow Lead Agencies and ACF to identify unique families over time in the absence of the Social Security Number (SSN). A Lead Agency may still use personally identifiable information, such as SSNs, for its own purposes, but this information cannot be reported on the ACF-801. We also remind CCDF Lead Agencies that, under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a note), Lead Agencies cannot require families to disclose SSNs as a condition of receiving CCDF.
We propose a new § 98.71(a)(15) to indicate whether a family is experiencing homelessness based on statutory language at Section 658K(a)(1)(B)(xi) that requires Lead Agencies to report whether children receiving CCDF assistance are experiencing homelessness.
We propose a new § 98.71(a)(16) to indicate whether the parent(s) are in the military service. The Administration has taken a number of actions to increase services and supports for members of the military and their families. This element will identify if the parent is currently active duty (
We propose a new § 98.71(a)(17) to indicate whether a child is a child with a disability. Section 658E(c)(3)(B) requires a Lead Agency's priority for services to include children with special needs. ACF is required to determine annually whether Lead Agencies use CCDF funds in accordance with priority for services requirements, including the priority for children with special needs. While Lead Agencies have flexibility to define “children with special needs” in their CCDF Plans, many include children with disabilities in their definitions. This data will help ACF determine, as required by law, whether Lead Agencies are in compliance with priority for service requirements. Additionally, the reauthorization added several other provisions related to ensuring children with disabilities have access to subsidies, and that the child care available meets the needs of these children and this proposed data element
We propose a new § 98.71(a)(18) to add a new data element on the primary language spoken in the child's home, using responses that are consistent with data reporting requirements for the Head Start program. The reauthorized Act includes provisions that support services to English learners. Specifically, Section 658E(c)(2)(G) of the Act requires Lead Agencies to assure that training and professional development of child care providers address needs of certain populations to the extent practicable, including English learners. Under Section 658G, allowable quality activities include providing training and outreach on engaging parents and families in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways to expand their knowledge, skills, and capacity to become meaningful partners in supporting their children's positive development. Furthermore, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires federally assisted programs to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access for persons who have limited English proficiency. The new data element on the ACF-801 will allow CCDF Lead Agencies to track provision of CCDF services to families who speak languages other than English. By collecting information on the language spoken at home by families, the CCDF Lead Agency will be able to design outreach and consumer education materials that meet the needs of populations in their service areas.
We propose a new § 98.71(a)(19) to indicate for each child care provider currently providing services to a CCDF child, the date of the most recent inspection for compliance with health, safety, and fire standards (including licensing standards for licensed providers) as described in § 98.42(b). Lead Agencies will need to track inspection dates to ensure that CCDF providers are monitored at least annually. If the Lead Agency uses more than one visit to check for compliance with these standards, the Lead Agency should report the most recent date on which all inspections were completed.
Finally, we propose to add new § 98.71(a)(20) to require Lead Agencies to submit an indicator of the quality of the child care provider as part of the quarterly family case-level administrative data report. This change will allow ACF and Lead Agencies to capture child-level data on provider quality for each child receiving a child care subsidy. This addition is in line with one of the Act's new purposes, which is to increase the number and percentage of low-income children in high quality child care. States and Territories currently report on the quality of child care provider(s) based on several indicators—including: QRIS participation and rating, accreditation status, compliance with State pre-kindergarten standards or Head Start performance standards, and other State-defined quality measure. However, previously, States and Territories were required to report on at least one of the quality elements for a portion of the provider population. This resulted in limited quality data, often for only a small portion of child care providers in a State or Territory. This change would require quality information for every child care provider. Working with States and Territories to track this data will give us a key indicator on the progress we are making toward the goal of increasing the number of low-income children in high quality care. Lead Agencies must also take into consideration the cost of providing higher quality care when setting payment rates pursuant to § 98.44(f)(iii). To ensure that the CCDF program is providing meaningful access to high quality care, it is essential for Lead Agencies to have data on the quality of CCDF providers. Current paragraph (a)(15) would be redesignated as paragraph (a)(21) but otherwise is unchanged.
We propose a new § 98.71(b)(5) to report the number of child fatalities by type of care as required by section 658K(a)(2)(F) of the CCDBG Act. This should include the number of fatalities occurring among children while in the care and facility of child care providers serving CCDF children (regardless of whether the child who dies was receiving CCDF). Current paragraph (b)(5) would be redesignated as paragraph (b)(6) but otherwise is unchanged.
We are revising paragraph (c), regarding reporting requirements for Tribal Lead Agencies, to specify that the Tribal Lead Agency's annual report shall include such information as the Secretary shall require. We intend to revisit requirements for all Tribal Lead Agencies, pursuant to proposed changes in Subpart I, at a later date. Proposed reporting requirements will be subject to public comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This subpart addresses requirements and procedures for Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations applying for or receiving CCDF funds. This section describes provisions of Subpart I and serves as the Tribal summary impact statement as required by Executive Order 13175. CCDF currently provides funding to approximately 260 Tribes and Tribal organizations that, either directly or through consortia arrangements, administer child care programs for approximately 520 federally-recognized Indian Tribes. Tribal CCDF programs are intended for the benefit of Indian children, and these programs serve only Indian children. With few exceptions, Tribal CCDF grantees are located in rural and economically challenged areas. In these communities, the CCDF program plays a crucial role in offering child care options to parents as they move toward economic stability, and in promoting learning and development for children. In many cases, Tribal child care programs also emphasize traditional culture and language. Below we discuss the proposed Tribal CCDF framework and proposed regulatory changes.
The CCDBG Act is not explicit in how its provisions apply to Tribes. ACF traditionally issues regulations to define how the law applies to Tribes. These proposed regulations are the result of several months of consultation on the new law with Tribes, as well as past consultations and Tribal comments on our 2013 NPRM. We heard from many Tribal leaders and CCDF Administrators asking for flexibility to implement child care programs that meet the needs of individual communities. The proposals included in this NPRM are designed to increase Lead Agency flexibility, while balancing the CCDF dual goals of promoting families' financial stability and fostering healthy child development.
According to Section 658O(a)(2) of the Act, Tribes will receive not less than two percent of the Discretionary CCDF funding. The Secretary may reserve an amount greater than two percent for Tribes if two conditions are met: 1) The amount appropriated is greater than the amount appropriated in FY 2014, and 2) the amount allotted to States is not less than the amount allotted in FY 2014.
Recognizing the needs of Tribal communities, ACF increased the Tribal
ACF proposes that grants over $ 1 million would be considered large allocations. In FY 2015, this category would include 18 Tribes. Grants between $1 million and $250,000 would be considered medium allocations. For FY 2015, this category would include 79 Tribes. Grants of less than $250,000 would be considered small allocations. In FY 2015, this category would include 162 Tribes. We are not proposing to set the allocation thresholds through regulation so that they may be updated or revised at a later date through consultation and notice. We discuss the exemptions further below.
In keeping with the goals of this NPRM and the intent of the law, ACF believes that ensuring the health and safety of children in child care and promoting quality to support child
The Act, at Section 658O(c)(2)(D), continues to require HHS to develop minimum child care standards for Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations receiving funds under CCDF. After three years of consultation with Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Tribal child care programs, health and safety standards were first published in 2000. The standards were updated and reissued in 2005. The HHS minimum standards are voluntary guidelines that represent the baseline from which all programs should operate to ensure that children are cared for in healthy and safe environments and that their basic needs are met. Many Tribes already exceed the minimum Tribal standards issued by HHS, and some have used the minimum standards as the starting point for developing their own more specific standards.
These minimum standards will need to be revised and updated to align with new requirements of the law and this proposed rule. In the preamble to Subpart E, ACF recommends that Lead Agencies consult the recently published
In the 2013 NPRM, we also proposed a similar change to make Tribal grantees, regardless of size, meet the quality spending requirements and we received a positive response from commenters. A primary goal of this proposed rule is to promote high quality child care to support children's learning and development. We want to ensure that Indian children and Tribes benefit from the increased recognition of the importance of high quality child care.
Because the quality requirement is applied as a percentage of the Tribe's CCDF expenditures, the amount required will be relatively small. However, we are requesting comments on this provision, in particular as it relates to Tribes that receive small allocations.
There are a wide range of quality improvement activities that Tribes have the flexibility to implement, and the scope of these efforts can be adjusted based on the resources available so that even smaller Tribal Lead Agencies can effectively promote the quality of child care. Most Tribal Lead Agencies are likely already engaged in activities that would count as quality improvement. We will provide technical assistance to help Tribes identify current activities that may count towards meeting the quality spending requirement, as well as appropriate new opportunities for quality spending.
The revisions to § 98.53 (Activities to Improve the Quality of Child Care), discussed earlier in this preamble, provide a systemic framework for organizing, guiding, and measuring progress of quality improvement activities. We recognize that this systemic framework may be more relevant for States than for many Tribes, given the unique circumstances of Tribal communities. However, Tribes may implement selected components of the quality framework at § 98.53, such as training for caregivers, teachers, and directors or grants to improve health and safety.
The revisions to § 98.53 in no way restrict Tribes' ability to spend CCDF quality dollars on a wide range of quality improvement activities. Under existing § 98.53(a), Tribes continue to have the flexibility to use quality dollars for activities that include, but are not limited to: Activities designed to provide comprehensive consumer education to parents and the public; activities that increase parental choice; and activities designed to improve the quality and availability of child care. As is currently the case, these activities could include: Child care resource and referral activities, consumer education, grants or loans to assist providers, training and technical assistance for providers and caregivers, improving salaries of caregivers, teachers and directors, monitoring or enforcement of health and safety standards, and other activities to improve the quality of child care, including native language lesson and cultural curriculum development. While Tribes have broad flexibility, to the degree possible, Tribes should plan strategically and systemically when implementing their quality initiatives in order to maximize the effectiveness of those efforts.
We also are working with Tribes on creating a culturally appropriate quality vision and framework specifically for Tribes. The framework will include a range of quality improvement activities, including activities that integrate native culture and language into child care, in order to encompass both large and small Tribes. We look forward to working with Tribes on this quality framework, and we will provide opportunities for Tribes to give feedback.
In addition, we encourage strong Tribal-State partnerships that promote Tribal participation in States' systemic initiatives, as well as State support for Tribal initiatives. For example, Tribes and States can work together to ensure that quality initiatives in the State are culturally relevant and appropriate for Tribes, and to encourage Tribal child care providers to participate in State initiatives such as QRIS and professional development systems.
Section 98.80 provides an introduction to the general procedures and requirements for CCDF Tribal grantees. As discussed above, ACF proposes to modify § 98.80(a) so that
Section 98.81 addresses the application and Plan procedures for Tribal CCDF grantees, and much of the new proposed regulatory language in this section, particularly the Plan exemptions listed at §§ 98.81(b)(6) and (9), reflects the changes made in § 98.80 (General procedures and requirements) and § 98.83 (Requirements for Tribal programs). These exemptions will be discussed in greater detail later in the preamble. Tribes receiving large or medium allocations will continue to fill out a traditional Tribal CCDF Plan, proposed at § 98.81(b), and Tribes receiving small allocations will fill out an abbreviated Plan, proposed at § 98.81(c). The Plan periods will now be three years, as required by the new statute.
We also propose to move the requirement at § 98.80(f) to § 98.81(b)(1)(ii). Under this revised provision, if a Tribe chooses not to exercise the option at § 98.81(b)(1)(i) or has a higher TMI, the Tribe would need to determine eligibility for services in accordance with § 98.20(a)(2). Tribes will continue to have the option of using either 85 percent of SMI or 85 percent of TMI.
At § 98.81(b)(9), ACF proposes that Plans for Tribes receiving medium allocations would be exempt from the requirement to include a description of the child care certificate program, unless the Tribe choses to include those services. This exemption corresponds with the exemption in § 98.83 discussed later in the preamble.
Section 98.82 currently requires Tribal Lead Agencies to coordinate with State CCDF programs and with other Federal, State, local, and Tribal child care and child development programs. Tribal Lead Agencies must also coordinate with the entities listed at §§ 98.12 and 98.14. We propose to add language at § 98.82(a) that would require Tribal Lead Agencies to coordinate the development of the Plan and the provision of services with the entities listed at §§ 98.12 and 98.14. This addition does not change existing policy; it serves as a clarification of the regulatory language.
The regulations at § 98.82(a) currently require Tribal Lead Agencies to coordinate with the entities described at § 98.14 in the development of their Plans. This list includes newly added child care licensing, Head Start collaboration, State Advisory Councils on Early Childhood Education and Care or similar coordinating bodies, statewide afterschool networks, emergency management and response, CACFP, services for children experiencing homelessness, Medicaid, and mental health services. While we are not making any Tribally-specific changes to §§ 98.14 or 98.82, we do recognize that Tribes may not always have access or connections with these entities. Many of these agencies, especially the State Advisory Councils and the statewide afterschool networks, interact primarily on the State level. Others, including child care licensing and Head Start, may not exist in the Tribe's service area.
Tribes should coordinate with these agencies to the extent possible. The Tribal Plan pre-print will ask Tribes to describe their efforts to coordinate with all the entities listed at § 98.14, but if coordination is not applicable, then the Tribes may simply say so in their Plans. We will support Tribal Lead Agency efforts to coordinate with these entities and plan to provide technical assistance to both Tribes and States to promote Tribal access and participation.
Tribes should also take note of two new provisions in the CCDBG law, included in this NPRM, which require State coordination with Tribes. First, at § 98.10(f), State Lead Agencies must collaborate and coordinate with the Tribes, at the Tribes' option, in a timely manner in the development of the State Plan. We encourage States to be proactive in reaching out to the Tribal officials for collaboration.
Second, State Lead Agencies must have training and professional development in place designed to enable child care providers to promote the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children and to improve the knowledge and skills of child care caregivers, teachers, and directors in working with children and their parents. Section 98.44(b)(2)(vi) would require this training and professional development be accessible to caregivers, teachers, and directors of
Section 98.83 addresses specific requirements for Tribal CCDF programs. In recognition of the unique social and economic circumstances in many Tribal communities, Tribal Lead Agencies are exempt from a number of CCDF requirements. At paragraph (d)(1), we propose to exempt all Tribes, regardless of allocation size, from the requirements for licensing applicable to child care services at § 98.40; a consumer education Web site at § 98.33(a); the market rate survey or alternative methodology and the related requirements at § 98.45(b)(2); the use of some grants or contracts at § 98.50(a)(3); the professional development framework at § 98.44(a); and the quality progress report at § 98.53(f). Tribes that receive medium or small CCDF allocations are also exempt from the requirements of operating a certificate program at § 98.30(a) and (d). Tribes that receive small allocations would be exempt from the majority of the new CCDF requirements to give these Tribes more flexibility in how they spend their CCDF funds. Finally, several provisions would apply to all Tribes providing direct services, unless the Tribe describes an alternative in its Plan: monitoring of child care providers and facilities at § 98.42(b)(2) and conducting background checks on other individuals residing in family child care homes at § 98.43(a)(2)(ii)(C).
We propose to remove previously-existing language on immunizations so that Tribes must now assure that children receiving CCDF services are age-appropriately immunized. We also propose to add regulatory language to add clarity to the previously-existing exemptions; this language does not change the previous policy. ACF also proposes two new paragraphs at (d)(2) and (d)(3) giving Tribes more flexibility around the monitoring inspections requirements and the requirement for comprehensive background checks on other individuals in family child care homes. At paragraph (e), ACF proposes to exempt Tribes receiving medium or small CCDF allocations from the requirement to operate a certificate program. At paragraph (f), ACF proposes more flexibility for Tribes receiving small allocations by only subjecting them to core CCDF requirements.
The QPR includes a report describing any changes to State regulations, enforcement mechanisms, or other policies addressing health and safety based on an annual review and assessment of serious child injuries and any deaths occurring in child care programs. Under this provision, Tribes are exempt from completing the QPR, including the review and assessment of serious injuries and deaths. Notwithstanding, we encourage Tribal Lead Agencies to complete a similar process to the one described in the QPR and to review the reported serious injuries or deaths and make policy or programmatic changes that could potentially save a child's life.
As with States and Territories, Tribes would have flexibility to determine the method to implement the immunization requirement. For example, they may require parents to provide proof of immunization as part of CCDF eligibility determinations, or they may require child care providers to maintain proof of immunization for children enrolled in their care. As indicated in the regulation, Lead Agencies have the option to exempt the following groups: (1) children who are cared for by relatives; (2) children who receive care in their own homes; (3) children whose parents object on religious grounds; and (4) children whose medical condition requires that immunizations not be given. In determining which immunizations will be required, a Tribal Lead Agency has flexibility to apply its own immunization recommendations or standards. Many Tribes may choose to adopt recommendations from the Indian Health Service or the State's public health agency.
In our 2013 NPRM, we also proposed that Tribal Lead Agencies would be subject to monitoring requirements, and we received many comments asking for more flexibility for Tribes. As with the 2013 NPRM, we believe that the monitoring requirements in the law and the additional requirements proposed in this NPRM may not be culturally appropriate for some Tribal communities. By allowing Tribes to describe alternative monitoring strategies in their Plans, we wanted to give Tribal Lead Agencies some flexibility in determining which monitoring requirements should apply to child care providers. Tribes cannot use this flexibility to bypass the monitoring requirement altogether, but may introduce a monitoring strategy that is culturally appropriate for their communities. Tribes may also use this flexibility to partner with other agencies that may already be conducting monitoring visits, such as State Lead Agencies, the Indian Health Service, or the Child and Adult Care Food Program. Coordinating and partnering with existing agencies can help lessen the financial and administrative burden.
We note that in order to conduct an FBI fingerprint check using Next Generation Identification, Lead Agencies must act under an authority granted by a Federal statute. States, as described in subpart E, may choose among three federal laws that grant authority for FBI background checks for child care staff. These three statutes are: the CCDBG Act, Public Law 92-544, and the National Child Protection Act/Volunteers for Children Act. These three laws give States the authority to conduct FBI fingerprint checks, but none of them specifically grant that same authority to Tribes. In order for Tribes to conduct FBI background checks, they may use the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, which to date only covers those individuals who are being considered for employment by the Tribe in positions that have regular contact with, or control over, Indian
ACF does want to offer some flexibility for Tribes around the background check requirements. We are proposing at § 98.83(d)(3) to allow Tribes to use an alternative approach to conducting full background checks on other individuals residing in a family child care home if the Tribal Lead Agency provides an adequate justification in its Plan, subject to ACF approval. We have heard through our consultation sessions that many Tribal families reside in households with several generations. Requiring all members of the household to complete all five components of a comprehensive background check could be burdensome for the family and for the Tribal Lead Agency. Therefore, we are proposing to allow a Tribal Lead Agency to use an alternative strategy to conduct background checks on other individuals in a family child care home. ACF expects that Tribal Lead Agencies will conduct some components of a background check for these individuals. In its justification, a Tribe must describe how the alternative background check strategy is appropriately comprehensive and protects the health and safety of children in care.
Under current regulations, Tribes receiving smaller CCDF grants are exempt from operating a certificate program. The dollar threshold for determining which Tribes are exempt from operating a certificate program is established by the Secretary. It was set at $500,000 in 1998 and has not changed. By proposing to exempt Tribes receiving medium or small allocations from operating a certificate program, we are effectively proposing to raise the dollar threshold to $1 million. As discussed earlier, we are proposing to consider medium allocations to be grants between $250,000 and $1 million and small allocations to be grants of less than $250,000. These proposals would expand the number of Tribes that are exempt from operating a certificate program. We believe that this higher threshold will allow Tribes with smaller CCDF allocations to focus on implementing the new requirements proposed in this NPRM, specifically concentrating on the health and safety and quality requirements.
We believe that this proposal allows Tribes with small allocations the flexibility to spend their CCDF funds in ways that would most benefit their communities. Tribes could choose to spend all of their CCDF funds on quality activities, or they could invest all of their funds into a Tribally-operated center. If a Tribe that receives a small allocation chooses to spend funds on direct services, then the Tribe would be required to meet the health and safety requirements, including the monitoring and background check requirements, as discussed earlier. Tribes that receive small allocations would also continue to be required to meet the fiscal, audit, and reporting requirements in the rule. To align with these limited CCDF requirements, Tribes with small allocations will complete an abbreviated Plan, as discussed earlier. This proposal balances increased flexibility with accountability, and ACF encourages these Tribes to focus their CCDF spending on ensuring health and safety and quality for children in child care.
OCC first notified Tribes of our proposal to increase the base amount through our 2013 NPRM. The base amount is not included in regulation, and does not require regulatory change. However, OCC wanted to give Tribes the opportunity to comment on this change through the public comment period associated with the proposed rule, and the comments received were largely supportive.
The increase in the Discretionary base amount will result in a lower Discretionary per child amount than would occur without the change in base amount. An increase in the base amount benefits smaller Tribes and consortia, and OCC hopes it will encourage capacity building, especially in Tribal consortia. Larger Tribes will receive less funding then they would have in the absence of this change; however, this impact could largely be offset by the overall increase in CCDF funding for Tribes and by an increase in the Tribal Discretionary set-aside, described above. Therefore, OCC anticipates stable or increased funding for most Tribal Lead Agencies.
Section 98.84 currently describes the procedures and requirements around Tribal construction or renovation of child care facilities. The CCDBG Act reaffirmed Tribes' ability to request to use CCDF funds for construction or renovation purposes. Section 658O(c)(6)(C) of the Act continues to disallow the use of CCDF funds for construction or renovation if it will result in a decrease in the level of child care services. However, the law now allows for a waiver for this clause if the decrease in the level of child care services is temporary. A Tribe will also need to submit a plan to ACF that demonstrates that after the construction or renovation is completed the level of
ACF also issued a Program Instruction to describe the application process for using CCDF funds on construction or renovation. This Program Instruction will also be updated to reflect the new requirements in the law. The Program Instruction expands upon and describes the statutory and regulatory requirements. In the event that the CCDF regulations do not address a specific issue, then we will look to Head Start and HHS's generally-accepted construction and renovation guidelines.
Subpart J contains provisions regarding HHS monitoring of Lead Agencies to ensure compliance with CCDF requirements, processes for examining complaints and for determining non-compliance, and penalties and sanctions for non-compliance.
Current regulations allow HHS to impose penalties and other appropriate sanctions for a Lead Agency's failure to substantially comply with the Act, the implementing regulations, or the Plan. Such penalties and sanctions may include the disallowance or withholding of CCDF funds in accordance with § 98.92. These regulations remain in effect.
In addition, we propose to add new provisions at § 98.92(b) in accordance with two penalties added by the reauthorization of the Act. New section 658E(c)(3)(B)(ii) requires HHS to annually prepare a report that contains a determination about whether each Lead Agency uses CCDF funding in accordance with priority for services provisions. These priority provisions are reiterated at § 98.44(a) of these proposed regulations, and require Lead Agencies to give priority to children with special needs, children from families with very low incomes, and children experiencing homelessness. The Act requires HHS to impose a penalty on any Lead Agency failing to meet the priority for services requirements. We propose to implement this new penalty through a new regulatory provision at § 98.92(b)(3). In accordance with the statute, the proposed rule provides that a penalty of not more than five percent of the CCDF Discretionary Funds shall be withheld if the Secretary determines that the Lead Agency has failed to give priority for service in accordance with § 98.44. This penalty will be withheld no earlier than the first full Fiscal Year following the determination to apply the penalty, and the penalty will not be applied if the Lead Agency corrects its failure to comply and amends its CCDF Plan within six months of being notified of the failure. The Secretary may waive a penalty for one year in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as a natural disaster.
The second new penalty was added by section 658H(j)(3) of the Act and is related to the new criminal background check requirements. We propose to implement this penalty through new regulatory language at § 98.92(b)(4). In accordance with the statute, the proposed rule provides that a penalty of not more than five percent of the CCDF Discretionary Funds for a Fiscal Year shall be withheld if the Secretary determines that the State, Territory, or Tribe has failed to comply substantially with the criminal background check requirements at § 98.43. We propose to add that this penalty will be withheld no earlier than the first full Fiscal Year following the determination to apply the penalty, and this penalty will not be applied if the State, Territory or Tribe corrects the failure before the penalty is to be applied or if it submits a plan for corrective action that is acceptable to the Secretary.
On September 5, 2007, ACF published a Final Rule that added subpart K to the CCDF regulations. This subpart, which was effective October 1, 2007, established requirements for the reporting of error rates in the expenditure of CCDF grant funds by the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The error reports were designed to implement provisions of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA; Pub. L. 107-300). In July 2010, the President signed into law the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) (Pub. L. 111-204), which amended the IPIA of 2002 and provided a renewed focus on government-wide efforts to control improper payments. In recent years, ACF has provided technical assistance and guidance to CCDF Lead Agencies to assist their efforts in preventing and controlling improper payments. These program integrity efforts help ensure that limited program dollars are going to low-income eligible families for which assistance is intended.
This proposed rule retains the error reporting requirements at subpart K, but proposes changes which are discussed below. In addition to the regulatory requirements at subpart K, details regarding the error rate reporting requirements are contained in forms and instructions that are established through the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) information collection process.
This requirement will strengthen CCDF program integrity and accountability. Existing CCDF regulations at § 98.102(a)(6) and (8)
The proposed rule indicates that the improper payment threshold, which triggers the requirement for a corrective action plan, will be established by the Secretary. Although the proposed rule provides flexibility to adjust the threshold in the future, the initial threshold would be an improper payment rate of 10 percent or higher. In other words, if a Lead Agency indicates that its improper payment rate reported in accordance with § 98.102(a)(3) equals or exceeds 10 percent, the Lead Agency would be subject to corrective action under proposed § 98.102(b). This 10 percent threshold is consistent with the IPERA which indicates that an improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for a Federal program is necessary for compliance. Under IPERA, ACF must submit a corrective action plan if the national improper payment rate for CCDF exceeds 10 percent. Since CCDF is administered by State and Territory Lead Agencies and the error rate review process is executed by States, the only effective way for ACF to achieve and maintain an improper payment rate below the 10 percent threshold is to hold Lead Agencies accountable.
A number of sections in this proposed rule refer to collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
In other instances, which are listed below, the proposed rule modifies several previously-approved information collections, but ACF has not yet initiated the OMB approval process to implement these changes. ACF will publish
The table below provides annual burden estimates for these existing information collections that are modified by this proposed rule. These estimates reflect the total burden of each information collection, including the changes made by this proposed rule.
Finally, this proposed rule contains 2 new information collection requirements, and the table below provides an annual burden hour estimate for these collections. First, § 98.33 requires Lead Agencies to collect and disseminate consumer education information to parents of eligible children, the general public, and providers through a consumer-friendly and easily accessible Web site. This Web site will include information about State or Territory policies (related to licensing, monitoring, and background checks) as well as provider-specific information, including results of monitoring and inspection reports and, if available, information about quality. This requirement applies to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 5 Territories that receive CCDF grants. In estimating the burden estimate, we considered the fact that many States already have existing Web sites. Even in States without an existing Web site, much of the information will be available from licensing agencies, quality rating and improvement systems, and other sources. The burden hour estimate below reflects an average estimate, recognizing that there will be significant State variation. The estimate is annualized to encompass initial data entry as well as updates to the Web site over time.
Second, § 98.42 requires Lead Agencies to establish procedures that require child care providers that care for children receiving CCDF subsidies to report to a designated State, Territorial, or Tribal entity any serious injuries or deaths of children occurring in child care. This is necessary to be able to examine the circumstances leading to serious injury or death of children in child care, and, if necessary, make adjustments to health and safety requirements and enforcement of those requirements in order to prevent any future tragedies. The requirement would potentially apply to the nearly 390,000 child care providers who serve children receiving CCDF subsidies, but only a portion of these providers would need to report, since our burden estimate assumes that no report is required in the absence of serious injury or death. Using currently available aggregate data on child deaths and injuries, we estimated the average number of provider respondents would be approximately 10,000 annually. In estimating the burden, we considered that more than half the States already have reporting requirements in place as part of their licensing procedures for child care providers. States, Territories, and Tribes have flexibility in specifying the particular reporting requirements, such as timeframes and which serious injuries must be reported. While the reporting procedures will vary by jurisdiction, we anticipate that most providers will need to complete a form or otherwise provide written information.
We will consider public comments regarding information collection in the following areas: (1) Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the CCDF program, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluating the accuracy of the estimated burden of the proposed collection; (3) enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimizing the burden of the collection of information, including the use of appropriate technology.
Written comments regarding information collection should be sent to ACF and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Attention: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families) by email to:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) requires federal agencies to determine, to the extent feasible, a rule's economic impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain their regulatory approach.
This NPRM will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is intended to implement provisions of the Act, and is not duplicative of other requirements. The reauthorization of the Act and these implementing regulations are intended to better balance the dual purposes of the CCDF program by adding provisions that ensure that healthy, successful child development is a consideration for the CCDF program (
The primary impact of the Act and this proposed rule is on State, Territory, and Tribal CCDF grantees because the rule articulates a set of expectations for how grantees are to satisfy certain requirements in the Act. To a lesser extent the rule would indirectly affect small businesses and organizations, particularly family child care providers, as discussed in more detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis below. In particular, requirements for comprehensive criminal background checks and health and safety training in areas such as first-aid and CPR may impact child care providers caring for children receiving CCDF subsidies. However, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of child care providers. The estimated cost of a comprehensive criminal background check is $55 per check. For the required health and safety training, a number of low-cost or free training options are available. Many States use CCDF quality dollars or other funding to fully or partially cover the costs of background checks and trainings. The health and safety provisions in the rule will primarily impact those CCDF providers currently exempt from State licensing that are not relatives—which account for only about 22 percent of CCDF providers nationally. Finally, we note that the proposed rule contains many provisions that will benefit child care providers by providing more stable funding through the subsidy program (
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct federal 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, distributive impacts, and equity). The Orders require federal agencies to submit significant regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 defines “significant regulatory actions,” generally 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 the Executive Order.
We estimate that the reauthorized CCDBG Act and this NPRM will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million. Therefore, this NPRM represents a significant regulatory action within the meaning of section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Given both the directives of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the importance of understanding the benefits, costs, and savings associated with these proposed changes, we describe the costs and benefits associated with the proposed changes and available regulatory alternatives below in the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
We have conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to estimate and describe expected costs and benefits resulting from the reauthorized CCDBG Act and this NPRM. This included evaluating State-by-State policies in major areas of policy change, including monitoring and inspections (including a hotline for parental complaints), background checks, training and professional development, consumer education (including Web site and consumer statement), quality spending, minimum 12-month eligibility and related provisions, increased subsidies, and supply building (see Table 1).
The State policies described in this RIA, including information from the FY2014-2015 CCDF Plans, represent policies that were in place prior to the reauthorization of the CCDBG Act. This is consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 which indicates that in cases where substantial portions of a rule simply restate statutory requirements that would be self-implementing, even in the absence of the regulatory action, the RIA should use a pre-statute baseline (
Parental choice is a foundational tenet of the CCDF program—to ensure parents are empowered to make their own decisions regarding the child care that best meets their family's needs. Prior to reauthorization, CCDF rules required Lead Agencies to promote informed child care choices by collecting and disseminating consumer education information to parents and the general public. Over the years, economists have researched and written about the problem of information asymmetry in the child care market and the resulting impact both on the supply of high quality care and a parent's ability to access high quality care. (Blau, D., The Child Care Problem: An Economic Analysis, 2001; Mocan, N., The Market for Child Care, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2002) In order for parental choice to be meaningful, parents need to have access to information about the choices available to them in the child care market and have some way to gauge the level of quality of providers. The CCDBG Act and this proposed rule strengthen consumer education requirements to make information about child care providers more accessible and transparent for parents and the general public.
Stable relationships between a child and their caregiver are an essential aspect of quality. Yet, under current policies, clients “churn” on and off of CCDF assistance every few months, even when they remain eligible. Some studies show that many families appear to remain eligible for the subsidies after they leave the program, suggesting that child care subsidy durations also are likely influenced by factors unrelated to employment (Grobe, D., R. B. Weber and E. E. Davis (2006). Why do they leave?: Child care subsidy use in Oregon.).
Many State subsidy policies make it overly burdensome for parents to keep their subsidy, or are not flexible enough to allow for temporary or minor changes in a family's circumstances. This is supported by a study that featured a series of interviews with state and local child care administrators and identified a number of administrative practices that appear to reduce the duration of child care subsidy usage (Adams, G., K. Snyder and J. R. Sandfort (2002) Navigating the child care subsidy system: Policies and practices that affect access and retention.) The study found that families often faced considerable administrative burden when trying to apply for or recertify their eligibility status. For example, families sometimes had to interact with more than one agency during the application process, had to make more than one trip to an administrative office, and sometimes had to wait for weeks or months to get an appointment with a social worker. In addition, families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) sometimes had additional difficulties with redetermination because of the temporary nature of their employment or training activities. The study also found that agencies had different policies regarding the ways in which families could recertify their eligibility status including mail, phone, or fax. Parents often find it difficult to navigate administrative processes and paperwork required to maintain their eligibility when policies are inflexible to changes in a family's circumstances. Policies that make it difficult for parents to keep their subsidy threaten the employment stability of parents and can disrupt children's continuity of care. This proposed rule establishes a number of family-friendly policies that benefit CCDF families by promoting continuity in subsidy receipt and child care arrangements.
Changes made by the CCDBG Act and this proposed rule, consistent with the revised purposes of the Act, are needed to: Protect the health and safety of children in child care; help parents make informed consumer choices and access information to support child development; provide equal access to stable, high quality child care for low-income children; and enhance the quality of child care and the early childhood workforce. For the purposes of estimating the costs of these new requirements, the analysis makes a number of assumptions. We welcome comment on all aspects of the analysis, but throughout the narrative, we specifically request comment in areas where there is uncertainty.
One overarching assumption that is consistent across all the estimates is that we are assuming that the current caseload of children in the CCDF program (approximately 1.4 million children) remains constant. Due to inflation and the potential for erosion in the value of the subsidy over time, funding increases will likely be necessary to maintain the caseload; however, those changes are not reflected in this RIA since they are not directly associated with this proposed rule.
While the estimate cannot fully predict how States and Territories will design policies in response to these new requirements or who would be responsible for paying certain costs, we do recognize that absent additional funding, these costs could impact the CCDF caseload. This point is discussed in greater detail below.
In our analysis of costs, we considered any claims on resources that would be made as a result of the proposed rule that would not have occurred absent the rule. This includes new requirements that are merely reiterating changes made in the reauthorized CCDBG Act of 2014, which were effective upon the date of enactment of November 19, 2014. This RIA discusses the potential impact of the following major provisions in the statute and in the proposed rule:
• Monitoring and inspections (including State hotlines for parental complaints);
• background checks;
• health and safety training;
• consumer education (Web site and consumer statement);
• minimum 12-month eligibility periods;
• administrative and IT/infrastructure costs;
• increased subsidy rates per child associated with increasing continuity and equal access; and
• supply building.
We conducted a State-by-State analysis of these major provisions. It should be noted that due to insufficient data, the health and safety portions of this cost estimate do not include Territories and Tribes. This omission should not minimize the fact that
In order to determine State practices, we relied on information from state-submitted FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, as well as the
We used data on requirements within a State by child care setting type (center, family home, group home, child's home) and licensing status, to project costs based on specific features of a State's existing requirements. When possible, if a State partially met the requirement we applied a partial implementation cost. For example, some States already conduct comprehensive background checks that include all components of a comprehensive background check except an FBI fingerprint check. Costs were assigned accordingly (assumptions about partial costs are explained in greater detail in the discussions below). The proposed rule offers significant flexibility in implementing various provisions, therefore in the RIA we identified a range of implementation options to establish lower and upper bound estimates and chose a middle-of-the-road approach in assessing costs.
This RIA takes statutory effective dates into account within a 10-year window. The analysis and accounting statements distinguish between average annual costs in years 1-5 during which some of the provisions will be in varying stages of implementation and the average annual ongoing costs in years 6-10 when all the requirements would be fully implemented. Some costs will be higher during the initial period due to start-up costs, such as building a consumer Web site, and costs associated with bringing current child care providers into compliance with health and safety requirements. However, significant costs, such as the requirement to renew background checks every five years, would not be realized until later. These compounding requirements account for the escalation in costs in the out years of the analysis.
Throughout this RIA, we calculate two kinds of costs:
Alternatively, claims that are made for resources where no exchange of money occurs are identified as
Each year, more than $5 billion in federal funding is allocated to State, Territory, and Tribal CCDF grantees. Activities in the proposed rule are all allowable costs within the CCDF program and we expect many activities to be paid for using CCDF funds. For example, although some States may supplement funding, others may choose to redistribute funding from a current use to address start-up costs or new priorities. We received a number of comments from States in response to the 2013 NPRM that, in the absence of additional funding, meeting requirements in the proposed rule would result in a reduction in the CCDF caseload. Therefore, we anticipate some money costs will result in this type of re-distributive budgetary impact within the CCDF program.
However, to make the costs of the rule concrete, we provide analysis on the economic impact of the rule if the child care caseload were to remain constant. While we recognize that there may be a decrease in caseload due to the financial realities of the new requirements, applying that decrease in caseload to this analysis would only lessen the estimated cost, which would result in a probable underestimate. While the costs estimated in this analysis represent the costs required, (regardless of who pays for the requirement) to meet the new requirements for the current caseload of 1.4 million children, it is not, and should not be interpreted as, our projection of future caseload.
Overall, based on our analysis, annualized costs associated with these provisions, averaged over a ten year window, are $256 million and the annualized amount of transfers is approximately $840 million (both estimated using a 3 percent discount rate), which amounts to a total annualized impact of $1.10 billion. Of that amount, $1.09 billion is directly attributable to the statute, with only an annualized cost of $1.6 million (or less than 1% of the total estimated impact) attributable to discretionary provisions of this proposed regulation. While this analysis does not attempt to fully quantify the many benefits of the reauthorization and this NPRM, we do conduct a breakeven analysis to compare requirements clarified through this regulation against a potential reduction in child fatalities and injuries. Further detail and explanation on the impact of each of the provisions is available below.
Per the new requirements in the CCDBG Act, this proposed rule includes several provisions focused on improving the health and safety of child care. We estimated costs associated with the following three requirements: Monitoring and inspections at § 98.42; comprehensive background checks at § 98.43; and health and safety training at § 98.41(a)(2).
Implementation costs of health and safety provisions, specifically the start-up costs, in the proposed rule will depend primarily on the number of child care providers in a State and current State practice in areas covered by the proposed rule. We used data from the FY 2014 ACF-800 administrative data report to estimate that approximately 269,000 providers caring for children receiving CCDF subsidies would be subject to CCDF health and safety requirements. In addition to these CCDF providers, this analysis also includes approximately 110,000 licensed providers who are not currently receiving CCDF subsidies but would be subject to the background check and certain reporting requirements.
These figures exclude relative care providers since States may exempt these providers from CCDF health and safety requirements. According to OCC's 2014 administrative data, there are approximately 115,000 relative care providers receiving CCDF assistance. States vary widely on what they require of relatives, with 18 States/Territories requiring that relative providers meet all health and safety requirements, 4 exempting relatives for all requirements, and 34 indicating that relative providers were exempt from some but not all requirements.
It is difficult to forecast State behavior in response to new requirements since Lead Agencies have the option to exempt relatives from these requirements. Even those States that currently apply requirements to relatives may keep those requirements at current levels rather than expanding to meet new requirements. To provide a general estimate of potential costs, if States were to apply half of all the new health and safety requirements to half of the current number of relative providers, the annualized cost (using a 3% discount rate) would be approximately $30 million (averaged over a 10 year window). However, since applying the new requirements to relatives is not a legal requirement, we are not including costs associated with relative providers in the accounting statement for this regulatory impact analysis. We do request comment on the extent to which Lead Agencies anticipate applying new requirements to relative providers.
It should be noted that, based on a longitudinal analysis of OCC's administrative data, the number of child care providers serving CCDF children has declined by nearly 50 percent between 2004 and 2014, an average decrease of 4 percent per year. The greatest decline occurred in settings legally operating without regulation, specifically family child care; however, both regulated and license-exempt child care centers also saw declines. This analysis is based on current provider counts, but assuming that the number of CCDF providers will continue to steadily decrease, this estimate of the number of providers, and resulting costs associated with implementing health and safety provisions, may be an overestimate.
Many States' licensing requirements for child care providers already meet or exceed components of the minimal health and safety requirements for CCDF providers in this proposed rule. For example, training in first-aid and CPR and background checks are commonly included as part of State licensing, with approximately 40 States already meeting this requirement for licensed providers (centers, group home, and family child care).
Many licensed CCDF providers already meet many of the other health and safety requirements as well. For example, more than 40 States already require annual monitoring of all their licensed providers, with even more already requiring pre-inspections of their licensed providers. In the case of licensed centers, more than 45 States already require pre-inspections. For those States whose licensing requirements do not meet CCDF health and safety requirements, there will be costs incurred. However, the largest cost will be incurred for those CCDF providers that are currently exempt from State licensing that are not relatives—approximately 85,000 providers nationally. (Table 2 below provides a national picture of the types of CCDF providers.) We used an expanded State-by-State version of this table to estimate costs for meeting health and safety requirements. As stated above, the proposed rule allows States to exempt relatives from health and safety requirements, including background checks, health and safety training, and monitoring. Therefore, ACF did not attribute any cost associated with these requirements to relative CCDF providers, though we welcome comment on predicted State policies in this area.
It should be noted that we include group home providers in this analysis because our current data includes a separate category for group homes. However, the proposed rule would remove “group home child care provider” from our definitions and data reporting, so group homes would no longer be included in the data going forward. In the future, according to the proposed rule, those providers currently designated as group home providers would now fall into the category of “family child care providers”
The CCDBG Act specified different monitoring requirements for providers who are licensed and providers who are license-exempt.
•
•
For this estimate, if a State reported that they conduct at least one annual monitoring visit for licensed child care providers (pre-licensure inspections are discussed separately below), we assumed no additional cost for those providers because it met or exceeded the frequency required by the statute and proposed rule. The majority of States already monitor licensed CCDF
This cost estimate takes into account three major components of the new monitoring requirements: (1) Annual monitoring, (2) Pre-inspections, and (3) a Hotline for parental complaints.
The annual monitoring estimate includes the following variables analyzed on a State-by-State basis:
• Current State Practice: We collected State-level data from the 2014-15 CCDF State plans and the
• Current Provider Counts: Using 2014 CCDF administrative data, we collected the number of providers within each setting for each State.
Using these data we arrived at an estimate of the number of providers within each State that would newly require an annual monitoring visit. We then estimated the number of new licensing inspectors and supervisors that would be required to monitor the projected number of providers newly subject to monitoring, based on a projected caseload of child care providers for each licensing staff. To estimate the actual cost, we calculated the cost of employing (salary and overhead) the estimated number of necessary new licensing staff (inspectors and supervisors).
The CCDBG Act requires States to have a ratio of licensing inspectors to child care providers and facilities that is sufficient to conduct effective inspections on a timely basis, but there is no federally required ratio. The current range of annual caseloads per licensing inspector is large, from 1:33 to 1:231. We used the following range to estimate the impact:
• Lower bound: 50th percentile of current licensing caseloads (weighted by the number of providers in each State), which produced an adjusted caseload of 1:126 providers per monitoring staff.
• Upper bound: A 1:50 ratio of providers to monitoring staff, as recommended by the National Association of Regulatory Administration.
Our final cost estimate represents the midpoint between the lower and upper bound estimate. To calculate the number of required supervisory staff, we assumed a ratio of one supervisor per seven monitoring staff, which is the current average across States as reported in the
To generate the actual cost associated with this staffing increase, we multiplied the number of new staff by salary and overhead costs for full-time equivalent (FTE) staff based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data from the
We anticipate that annual monitoring in States could result in additional follow-up visits, which can be expected if problems were identified in the initial visit. Because we do not have data on this with which to estimate potential impacts, we welcome comment on the percentage of providers that would require a follow-up visit as a result of new annual monitoring visits.
Opportunity costs for the monitoring requirements account for the fact that to successfully pass a monitoring visit, there would presumably be a number of administrative costs (in terms of time; an opportunity cost) for providers and caregivers. For example, providers must read the new rules, change their current practices to comply, and obtain and track paperwork to make sure they are in compliance. For the purposes of this following analysis, we made several assumptions about the amount of time required to prepare for and comply with the monitoring requirement, but we welcome comment on these assumptions. To calculate the opportunity cost of these visits, we assumed that time spent doing administrative tasks equals the length of the monitoring visit plus an additional 1.5 and 2.0 hours of preparation per hour of the visit, for family child care and center providers respectively.
Based on one State reporting that their monitoring visits for licensure took between 2.5 and 5 hours, we used 2.5 hours as the basis for our lower bound and 4 hours as the basis for our upper bound. We used 4 hours instead of 5 for our upper bound estimate because 5 hours is the amount reported for a licensing visit, but what is required in the proposed rule is generally much less extensive than what is generally required for licensure. As such, our lower bound estimate uses 6.25 and 7.5 hours of preparation for family child care and center providers, respectively, and our upper bound uses 10 and 12 hours of preparation for family child care and center providers, respectively. According to BLS, for child care workers, one hour equals $18.80 after accounting for benefits and overhead (we include overhead because administrative preparation time occurs during work hours). We estimated the opportunity cost of preparation time for monitoring to be an average of $5.2 million annually (estimated using a 3% discount rate) during the two-year phase-in period (assumes States begin to ramp-up monitoring, but not fully implemented) and an annualized opportunity cost of $9.5 million (estimated using a 3% discount rate) over the entire 10 year window. Note that the phase-in period discussed here covers a two year period and is different from the phase in period in the table below, which shows a phase-in period of 5 years (after which
Some proportion of providers will require remedial work to meet CCDF health and safety requirements after an annual visit. For example, a provider may be out of compliance with building safety or not have up-to-date immunization records, and costs in terms of time as well as material resources would be necessary to come into compliance. However, it is difficult to quantify these effects because the specific remediation required will vary by provider and other circumstances. Therefore, we did not attempt to monetize the cost of providers' remediation efforts. In addition, there are also benefits to be reaped (in terms
Next we estimate cost of pre-licensure inspections required by the CCDBG Act. This requirement, as proposed, applies only to licensed CCDF providers. Using the same methodology that we used for annual monitoring, we determined how many States already met this requirement and used CCDF administrative data to determine the number of licensed CCDF providers (by setting type) that did not previously but would now require pre-licensure visits. The proposed rule allows States to grandfather all existing providers—thus there is no start-up cost or backlog of providers that need a pre-inspection. There are not good data to estimate how many new providers a State would need to pre-inspect on an annual basis, but anecdotal evidence suggests the number is relatively small. Of the States that do not currently require pre-inspections (1 for centers, 6 for group homes, and 7 for family child care), we estimated (based on information shared by a few States) that a lower bound of five percent of family child care and four percent of center care would be new each year (lower bound). For the upper bound, we estimate that 12 percent of family child care and 7 percent of child care centers would be new each year.
Using a caseload of 88 providers per monitoring staff (the midpoint of the 50th percentile of current caseload data and the recommended caseload of 50:1), and using the same salary and benefits data as the monitoring estimates, the estimated present value cost of meeting this requirement over the 10 year period examined in this rule, using a 3% discount rate, is approximately $6 million. Ongoing average annual pre-inspection costs are estimated to be approximately $1 million (estimated using a 3% discount rate), but would not begin until 2017.
Monetized caregiver time to prepare for pre-inspections is considered an opportunity cost and is estimated to be approximately $200,000 annually, a relatively small amount because this only applies to new licensed providers in the few States that don't already require pre-licensure inspections. Though some of the opportunity cost would be incurred prior to the actual inspection visit, for the purposes of this estimate, we considered all costs for pre-inspections as beginning after the end of the phase-in period. We used the same methodology used to calculate annual inspections to determine the opportunity cost of pre-inspections.
However, recognizing that preparing for an initial licensing inspection may require additional time, we used the midpoint of the estimate time for an annual visit and doubled it for an estimated 16.25 hours for family child care and group homes and 19.5 hours for centers. Again, we welcome comment on these assumptions if there is additional data on the amount of time required to prepare for and participate in an inspection.
This cost analysis also includes the “parental complaint hotline” as part of the monitoring requirements. Per the CCDBG Act, the proposed rule would require at § 98.32(a) Lead Agencies to establish or designate a hotline or similar reporting method for parents to submit complaints about child care providers. Lead Agencies have flexibility in how they implement this requirement, including whether the system is telephonic or through a similar reporting process, whether the hotline is toll-free, and whether the hotline is managed at the State or local level. Based on an examination of several States that already have comparable hotlines in place, this estimate for the parental complaint hotline includes multiple components that might be associated with the implementation and maintenance of a telephonic hotline.
These components include the one-time purchase of an automatic call distribution (ACD) system at $45,000; the use of a digital channel on a T1 line ranging from $204 to $756 per year; 2,000 minutes of incoming call time at $0.06 per minute; and salary and benefits for one FTE to manage the hotline at $67,000. States vary in how they collect parental complaints. According to an analysis of the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans and review of State child care and licensing Web sites, 18 States/Territories have a parental complaint hotline that covers all CCDF providers, 22 States/Territories have a parental complaint hotline that covers some child care providers, and 16 States/Territories do not have a parental complaint hotline. (Note that unlike the other health and safety provisions, this estimate does include Territories).
States that had hotlines for both licensing and CCDF were considered as meeting the full requirement for a parental complaint hotline and had no additional costs. States that only had one hotline (
We used a range of options to estimate the impact of the parental complaint hotline requirement based on the cost of the TI line and whether the hotline is toll-free and chose the mid-point as the primary estimate. Using this methodology, the estimated present value cost of meeting this requirement over the 10 year period examined in this rule, using a 3% discount rate, is approximately $16.6 million. Average annual costs during the phase-in period are estimated to be approximately $2.6 million during the first year (different than the phase-in figure in Table 3 below) and an average of $1.8 million for each year after. The estimate assumed slightly higher startup costs during the first year because States and Territories may need to purchase and install an ACD system.
Similar to the methodology used for monitoring, the first step of the cost estimate was to determine current State practice. We used CCDF 2014-15 State Plan data (which included State-by-State data on four distinct background check components organized by provider type) to determine which States already met certain components of the background check requirement. After identifying the areas where States would need to implement new requirements we applied the provider counts to determine the number of child care staff members that would need to meet these new background check requirements.
Because our administrative data on the number of CCDF providers represent the number of child care programs serving CCDF children, not the individual child care staff members in these settings that would need to receive a background check, we estimate the number of individual child care staff members that would be affected by this provision by applying a multiplier to each provider type (centers, family home, and group home).
We propose to require individuals, age 18 or older, residing in a family child care home be subject to background checks. It is reasonable to assume that these individuals may have unsupervised access to children. Because we are including these individuals in the definition of child care staff members, they will be subject to the same requirements and will be allowed the same appeals process as employees.
To generate an estimated number of staff per child care center, we used data from the
We estimated the number of other adult household members residing in family child care homes (persons other than the caregiver) and relevant staff members and added this to our cost estimate. We assumed each family child care and group home provider had an average of 1 additional household member. (This assumption is informed by consultation with State administrators, who stated that most frequently there is 1 other adult over the age of 18 in a family child care home that must undergo a background check).
Using these multipliers, we estimated the cost for background checks for staff members newly subject to the requirements. This includes both the cost of obtaining the background check and the opportunity cost for child care staff members to meet the required components. The opportunity cost represents the value of time (measured as foregone earnings) of child care staff members during the time, they spend to complete a background check.
Many States already require some, if not most, of the background check components. To determine the existing need, we compared the requirements described in this proposed rule against current background check requirements, as reported in the CCDF 2014-2015 Plans. According to the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, nearly 30 States require that licensed child care center staff undergo a State criminal background check that includes a fingerprint. More States already have requirements for a State criminal background check without a fingerprint, but for this estimate, we only counted States that required a fingerprint as meeting the requirement. For licensed centers, more than 40 already require an FBI fingerprint check, nearly all already require a check with a child abuse and neglect registry, and more than 35 require a check with a sex offender registry. Nearly 30 States require licensed family child providers to have a State criminal background check that includes a fingerprint, more than 40 already require an FBI fingerprint check, more than 30 require a check with the child abuse and neglect registry, and
Fewer States meet the background check requirements for unlicensed CCDF providers. According to our State Plan data, only fewer than 25 States already have FBI fingerprint check requirements in place for its unlicensed providers and only six require those providers to have a State background check that includes a fingerprint.
Using this data, we identified gaps in existing State policies as compared to the newly-required background check components. These gaps were matched with CCDF ACF-800 administrative data showing the number of providers per setting type by State, and then using the methodology above calculated the number of child care staff members requiring background checks.
As mentioned above, there are two costs of a background check: the fee to conduct the check and the time it takes for individuals to get the check. With regard to the fee, Lead Agencies have flexibility to determine who pays for background checks. According to the FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, more than States require the child care provider to pay for the background check, approximately 10 States indicated the cost was split, and fewer than 10 States indicated they pay the fees associated with the cost of conducting a background check. However, regardless of how costs are assigned, an impact analysis must include the overall monetary and opportunity cost impacts.
In their CCDF Plans, Lead Agencies described their costs associated with conducting background checks, including cost information on individual components of the background check. This information, combined with information we received from the FBI regarding costs of FBI fingerprint checks, was used to derive an estimated average cost of each background check component for a total of $55 for each set of four background checks. We applied this cost (or a partial cost) to the number of individuals in need of some or all of the background check components, determined after identifying State-by-State practices for different types of providers.
Next, we estimated the average annual ongoing cost of administering background checks to new child care staff members (as opposed to start-up costs associated with bringing existing staff members into compliance). Child care provider departure rates cited in the literature vary widely from as low as 10 percent to 20 percent (
Based on this approach, the estimated present value cost of meeting these background check requirements (for existing and new providers) over the 10 year period examined in this rule, using a 3% discount rate, is approximately $58.6 million. ACF estimated that during the three year phase-in period background check fees would have an average annual money cost of $10.8 million (also estimated using a 3% discount rate), as States bring existing providers into compliance. (Note again that this phase-in period is different than the five year period indicated in the table below). We estimate the average annual ongoing money costs associated with background checks for new staff members of approximately $4 million (estimated using a 3% discount rate).
The CCDBG Act requires that all child care staff members receive a background check every five years. Through the 2014-15 CCDF State Plans, States report on how frequently licensed providers are required to receive each component of the background check. This data was available both by individual background check component and by provider type. If a State already required that a particular background check be renewed every five years (or more frequently), we did not include it in this cost estimate. While we know that States have similar policies in place for unlicensed providers, we do not have data for this subset of the provider population. Therefore, we considered the renewal of background checks for unlicensed providers to be a fully new cost to all States, understanding that this is more likely than not an overestimate.
Since not all background checks will be conducted in the same year, we spread these costs evenly over a five year period to show that the costs would not be incurred all at once. We recognize that in practice these costs may not be evenly distributed over the five year period, depending on how States choose to conduct background checks during the initial implementation period. However, any uneven distribution of costs over time only negligibly affects the total dollar amount. The estimated present value cost of renewing background checks for all individuals over the 10 year period examined in this rule, using a 3% discount rate, is approximately $55.4 million, with the average annual ongoing money costs of this five year renewal requirement (once it begins in year six of the ten year window) to be $13.6 million. However, since provider counts have been in steady decline (as discussed earlier), this may be an over-estimate.
Another feature of the background check requirement is that States are required to check the State-based criminal, sex offender, and child abuse and neglect registries for any States where an individual resided during the preceding five years. To estimate how many individuals would require an additional State background check, we used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts a Current Population Survey that includes data on Migration and Geographic Mobility (
Next, we monetized child care staff member time spent obtaining a comprehensive background check such as completing paperwork or other activities necessary to complete the check. We assumed that a check of the child abuse neglect registry takes 30 minutes, and that the other three components of a comprehensive background check take 1 hour combined (or 20 minutes each) for a total of 1.5 hours. We also assumed that each hour is worth $12.80, assuming $10 per hour for a child care staff member multiplied by 1.28 to account for benefits. (
More extensive background checks will lead to greater numbers of job applicants and other associated people being flagged as risky, thus leading to additional types of cost. For example, a hiring search would need to be extended if the otherwise top candidate is revealed by a background check to be unsuitable to work with children. These costs that result from background checks are correlated with benefits; indeed, if this category of costs is zero, then the background check provisions of this proposed rule would have no benefits. However, due to lack of data, we have not attempted to quantify either this type of costs or the associated benefits and request comments that could inform such quantification.
For this analysis, we estimated costs in the following areas: current number of CCDF caregivers, teachers, and directors (using FY 2014 data) to meet new pre-service or orientation training requirements; on-going training for caregivers, teachers, and directors (which includes new incoming caregivers); and pre-service or orientation training for new caregivers, teachers, and directors.
To establish a baseline, ACF used information reported by States in their FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans and information from the
We reviewed the health and safety training delivery models in multiple States with a range of available training requirements to get a better sense of the range of costs for training. We found a wide range, from training provided at no-cost, to training packages that cost up to $170. Using these figures as a basis, a lower bound of $60 and an upper bound of $140 was established for the total training package per caregiver. This range is informed by the fact that many no-cost online training courses have already been developed, and thus are truly no cost, but even States taking advantage of no-cost online trainings would most likely have to use additional trainings with costs associated in order to meet all the requirements.
Training costs were broken into three components: first-aid & CPR training, child development training, and then a package of all other basic health and safety requirements. For the purposes of this estimate, we created these groupings to better reflect the available cost information that we gathered through our research. First-aid and CPR are the most commonly offered trainings, so their costs were easier to identify. We separated child development training from the rest of the package to reflect the fact that the delivery of trainings in this area are more likely to be tied to broader on-going professional development curricula or programs, and may have a higher cost. Breaking the trainings down in this way allowed us to apply a pro-rated amount, based on what was currently required by States.
This training requirement only applies to child care providers receiving CCDF subsidies. However, as with the background check estimate, another factor in the calculation was the number of caregivers, teachers and directors per provider that would need to receive the training, since the ACF-800 data captures the number of child care providers serving CCDF children not individual caregivers, teachers, or directors in these settings that would need to receive training. To compensate we applied a multiplier to each setting type (centers, family home, and group home). We used the same methodology described in the background check section above (based on data from the NSECE, ACF-801, and
Next, we assumed that some caregivers, teachers, and directors may already have training in some of the topics, though they were not previously required, and reduced the total estimate by 10 percent. After applying these assumptions, to gaps in current State practice, we were able to estimate the present value cost of compliance with the new pre-service and orientation training requirement. A basic explanation of the calculation is “the number of trainings required for compliance (by State and by provider type) multiplied by number of individuals trained multiplied by the cost per training (up to $140 per individual). We also assumed that some portion of individuals will have already received trainings that could apply to the new requirements, so we reduced the final estimate by ten percent. Using a 3% discount rate, the estimated cost is approximately $61 million over the 10 year period examined in this rule, or an annualized value of $7 million. We estimated that during the phase-in period, the required pre-service or orientation health and safety training has an average annual money cost of $18.8 million for the initial two year phase-in period and $3.0 million in subsequent years. The increased cost in the initial years is due to the high cost of bringing current providers into compliance during the phase-in period while in subsequent years, the pre-service and orientation trainings would only apply to new providers. To estimate the ongoing cost of providing health and safety training in the required topic areas pursuant to the CCDBG Act to newly entering caregivers, teachers, and directors of CCDF providers who would not otherwise have been required to receive training, we had to predict turnover within the provider population. We took the midpoint of the turnover number we used for background checks—15 percent. Since, according to the NSECE, many caregivers new to a care setting are not new to the profession, we further reduced that estimate by 20 percent to account for the fact that some new caregivers, teachers, and directors will be coming from other CCDF care settings, and thus bring their training credentials with them. (
To generate a cost of ongoing training, based on anecdotal evidence from State administrators, we assumed that ongoing trainings (
Next we monetized caregiver/teacher/director time spent completing the requisite health and safety trainings.
Our 5 percent estimate for Administrative costs is based on Sec. 658E(c)(3)(C) of the Act, which places a 5 percent limit on administrative costs, “Not more than 5 percent of the aggregate amount of funds available to the State to carry out this subchapter by a State in each fiscal year may be expended for administrative costs incurred by such State to carry out all of its functions and duties under this subchapter.”
The 5 percent estimate for IT/Infrastructure costs is based on OCC's expenditure data (ACF-696), which shows that Lead Agencies reported using a total of $68 million or approximately 1 percent of expenditures on computer information systems. Given the expected increase in IT costs associated with implementing the new rule, including possible costs associated with consultation, we increased that to 5 percent, which we considered a reasonable estimate given current expenditure levels.
The estimated present value cost of both administrative costs and IT/Infrastructure costs over the 10 year period examined in this rule, using a 3% discount rate, is $72.4 million for each. This amounts to an annualized cost of approximately $8.3 million each for administrative and IT/Infrastructure costs.
The CCDBG Act and the proposed rule includes several provisions related to improving transparency for parents and helping them to make better informed child care choices. Some of these provisions may require new investments by the States, Territories, and Tribes, including a consumer education Web site at § 98.33(a) and a consumer statement at § 98.33(d). Greater discussion of each of the provisions can be found at Subpart D. All costs associated with implementation of consumer education requirements are considered money costs (as opposed to opportunity costs) since they would involve an actual money transaction.
ACF conducted a comprehensive review of State Web sites and found 35 States and Territories already have Web sites that meet at least some of the new requirements. Based on an analysis of current State consumer education Web sites, we assumed that any of the States that did not meet any of the new requirements would have all new costs. For States that met some of the requirements, we determined the percentage of work needed for the Web site to meet the requirements and multiplied the percentage of work needed by the cost estimate for building
Building and implementing a new Web site would require some start-up costs, so the cumulative estimated costs are higher during the initial five-year phase-in period. We established a lower bound estimate to include the web developer costs of planning, creating supporting documentation, site and infrastructure set-up, static page creation, initial data imports, the creation of basic and advanced search functions and data management systems, and testing. The upper bound adds development and improvement activities to modernize the Web site as technologies change. Ongoing annual costs include quality control and maintenance, providing customer support, and monthly data updates to the Web site. All of these estimates include salaries and overhead for the Web site developers and staff, weighted by the number of CCDF providers in each State.
Based on our research, we used the same salary and overhead information ($67,000 for line staff) for all States. However, we believe that there will be different levels of effort depending on the number of providers in a State, so we assumed different FTEs based on the total number of child care providers in a State: States with more than 8,000 providers (3.0 FTE), states with between 3,000 and 8,000 providers (2.50 FTE), and States with less than 3,000 providers (2.0 FTE). 11 States had over 8,000 providers; 16 States and Territories had between 3,000 and 8,000 providers; and 29 States and Territories had fewer than 3,000 providers.
Over the five-year phase-in period, we estimated an average annual money cost (estimated using a 3% discount rate) for just the building and maintenance of Web sites of $12.8 million and ongoing money costs of $11.8 million annually.
The proposed consumer education Web site would require a list of available providers and provider-specific monitoring reports, including any corrective actions taken. The costs associated with collecting the information necessary to provide this information on the Web site is included in other parts of this RIA. For example, this RIA includes an estimate for the cost of implementing proposed monitoring and inspection requirements. There may also be effort associated with translating information from monitoring and inspection reports for an online format. However, since the monitoring cost assumes the full salary for monitoring staff and supervisors, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that the duties of these employees would include processing licensing information/findings.
However, one of the proposed components of the consumer education Web site at § 98.33(a)(2)(ii) is information about the quality of the provider as determined by the State through a quality rating and improvement system (QRIS) or other transparent system of quality indicators, if the information is available for the provider. For Lead Agencies that do not currently have a means for differentiating quality of care, there may be new money costs associated with creating the system of quality indicators necessary to obtain quality information on providers. Therefore, we are incorporating the cost of implementing a system of quality indicators into the cost estimate for the consumer education Web site.
In order to estimate the costs of implementing the transparent system of quality indicators for the consumer education Web site, we modeled a sample system of quality indicators using the QRIS Cost Estimation Model (developed by the National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement funded by ACF). Costs were associated with the following components included in the cost estimation model: Quality assessment, monitoring and administration, and data and other systems administration. For each State, we identified the components of the sample system of quality indicators that each individual State or territory was missing. Costs were applied only in the areas that were lacking for States and territories with partial compliance. States and territories not meeting any of the components of the model had all new costs associated with each component. Using information from the CCDF FY 2014-2015 State Plans and the National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement, ACF determined which States had a system for differentiating the quality of care available in the state, which States could then use to provide information on the consumer education Web site. In order for States to be considered as already meeting this requirement, the State needed to have reported having a means for measuring and differentiating quality between child care providers. ACF recommends this system be a QRIS that meets high quality benchmarks, but as this NPRM does not propose requiring a QRIS, we counted other systems of quality indicators, such as tiered reimbursement based on quality, as meeting the proposed components of the consumer Web site. More than 45 States have sufficient means for differentiating quality and therefore we assumed no cost for those States.
ACF estimates that during the five-year phase-in period the total national cost associated with implementing transparent systems of quality indicators has an average annual cost of $2.2 million. This estimate has been added to the cost of designing and implementing the consumer education Web site, with an estimated present value cost over the 10 year period examined in this rule, using a 3% discount rate, of $116.4 million, with an annualized cost of $13.3 million.
The information included in the consumer statement overlaps with much of the information required on the consumer education Web site. In their FY 2014-2015 CCDF Plans, 42 States and Territories report using their Web sites to convey consumer education information to parents about how their child care certificate permits them to choose from a variety of child care categories. Since many States and Territories are already using their Web sites to make available provider-specific information, we assume they would use their Web sites to begin building consumer statements. We assumed the consumer education Web site already includes the majority of information required in the consumer statement, including, if available, information about provider quality. However, Lead Agencies may have costs to pay for updates to their Web sites, including compiling information on the hotline and creating printable forms for hard copies of the consumer statement, if desired. This estimate also takes into account the number of providers in each State or Territory. During the five-year phase-in period, we estimated an average annual cost of the consumer statement provisions to be approximately $1 million and an average ongoing cost of $775,000 annually.
The reauthorized statute and this proposed rule include several policies aimed at increasing access to quality care for low-income children, as well as creating a fairer system for child care providers. As Lead Agencies implement these new policies, we expect that there will be an increase in the amount paid to child care providers, representing a budget impact on Lead Agencies. While we expect these changes to cause an increase in payments, we lack data on the amounts associated with each of these policies, and request comments about whether Lead Agencies expect these policies to cause an increase in the subsidy payment rates.
We expect the following policies and practices to impose budget impacts on Lead Agencies:
• Setting payment rates based on the most recent market rate survey and at least at a level to cover health, safety, and quality requirements in the NPRM, and that provide families receiving CCDF subsidies access to care of comparable quality to care available to families with incomes above 85 percent State Median Income. Lead Agencies must also take into consideration the cost of providing higher quality child care services (§ 98.45(f));
• Delinking provider payments from a child's occasional absences by either paying based on a child's enrollment, providing full payment if a child attends at least 85 percent of authorized time, or providing full payment if a child is absent for five or fewer days in a month (§ 98.45(m)(2)); and,
• Adopting the generally-accepted payment practices of child care providers who do not receive CCDF subsidies, including paying on a part-time or full-time basis (rather than paying for hours of service or smaller increments of time) and paying for mandatory fees that the provider charges to private-paying parents (§ 98.45(m)(3)).
Lead Agencies are required to implement each of these policies; however, several of them have a few options from which Lead Agencies may choose. We do not know which options Lead Agencies will choose, and therefore are not certain of which policies will impose budget impacts on which Lead Agencies. These impacts will also vary by Lead Agency depending on how many of the policies the Lead Agency adopted prior to this NPRM. We request comment on how Lead Agencies may choose to implement these different payment policies and practices.
Because of the multiple policy options available to Lead Agencies and limited data on the effects of individual policies, it is difficult to estimate new impacts associated with each policy listed. However, we recognize that implementing these new policies will impact Lead Agency budgets and contribute to an increase in the amount of cost per child of child care assistance per child. Therefore, despite our uncertainty regarding specific effects, we would be overlooking a potentially significant new impact if we did not include an analysis of payment policies and practices in this RIA.
These payment policies and practices will each have varying effects, but once they are put together, one likely outcome is an increase in the average annual subsidy amount per child. Therefore, in order to estimate the possible payment effects associated with these policies, we are bundling them together and estimating their total impact on the average annual subsidy per child. The actual impact will depend on how many of the policies the Lead Agency currently has in place and how the Lead Agency chooses to implement these new policies.
The average annual subsidy rate per child in FY 2013 was $4,735. This amount is the starting point for our estimate. The average annual subsidy rate per child has historically increased each year. Therefore, we have built in a 2.59% increase for each of the ten years included in this cost estimate. This increase represents the historical increases in the average annual subsidy per child that were used to estimate the rate at which the subsidy would increase without this NPRM.
This subsidy amount, including the increase that would be expected to happen regardless of reauthorization and this NPRM, provides the baseline for our ten year estimate. This average represents all settings, all types of care, all ages, and all localities, which masks great variation across the States/
To calculate the impacts, we estimated a phased-in increase in the average annual subsidy per child above the baseline, which includes the expected increase in the average annual subsidy per child regardless of this proposed rule. We expect that there will be a phase-in of the subsidy increase as Lead Agencies phase-in the new policies in reauthorization and this NPRM. The phase-in is expected from FY 2016 to FY 2018, with the increase in the subsidy being $165 in FY 2016, $265 in FY 2017, and $515 in FY 2018. This represents the increase on top of the regular annual average subsidy per child, and not the estimated subsidy itself. Following the new market rate survey or alternative methodology that may lead to setting higher payment rates, we estimate the subsidy would increase by $765 in FY 2019, and stay steady in FY 2020 and FY 2021. With the new market rate survey or alternative methodology in FY 2022, we expect an additional increase in the subsidy of $1,015, and estimate the subsidy will stay steady in FY 2023 and FY 2024.
These estimated increases to average annual subsidy are based on our assumptions about how quickly Lead Agencies may implement the policies, and the reality that the average annual subsidy will likely grow incrementally. Because of limited data, we chose to estimate a modest increase to the average annual subsidy per child. However, given the uncertainty regarding exactly how much the average annual subsidy per child may increase each year, we request comments and estimates regarding these new costs and how they may impact the subsidy rate in each State/Territory.
The estimated increases included in this RIA are not recommendations for what ACF believes to be appropriate levels to set rates in States/Territories and should not be considered as the amount needed to provide an acceptable level of health and safety, or to provide high quality care. As mentioned earlier in this NPRM, ACF is very concerned about States'/Territories' current low payment rates. As stated earlier in this NPRM, ACF continues to stand behind the 75th percentile of current market rates, which remains an important benchmark for gauging equal access for children receiving CCDF-funded child care.
The per child calculations used here are not recommendations for a per child subsidy, but rather represent an estimated cost of increasing the current national average annual subsidy per child as a result of these new policies. This is likely an underestimate of the payment amounts necessary to raise provider payment rates to a level that supports access to high quality child care for low-income children. We welcome comments on what provider payment rates may be necessary to support high quality child care.
To calculate the estimated total increase in the average annual subsidy per child and the impacts associated with the new payment policies in this NPRM, we multiplied the estimated increase in the average annual subsidy per child (described above) by the FY 2013 CCDF caseload of 1.4 million children. Based on this formula, we estimate the average annual impact to be $437 million during the initial five year period, with the estimated present value over the full ten year period of $844.9 million (estimated using a 3% discount rate).
As discussed above, there is a high level of uncertainty associated with this estimate. However, not including an estimate of the Lead Agency budget impacts associated with these policies would overlook significant policies in the legislation and this NPRM and fail to give an accurate picture of the costs associated with them. We appreciate any comments that provide additional information about State/Territory practice and costs associated with the proposed policies that could help to refine this analysis.
OMB Circular A-4 notes the importance of distinguishing between costs to society as a whole and transfers of value between entities in society. The increases in subsidy payments just described impose budget impacts on Lead Agencies, but from a society-wide perspective, they only generate costs to the extent that they lead to new resources being devoted to quantity or quality of child care. Although we acknowledge this potential increase in resource use, for the technical purposes of this regulatory impact analysis, we will refer to the estimated subsidy payment impacts as transfers from Lead Agencies to entities bearing the existing cost burden (mostly child care providers who typically have low earnings), rather than societal costs.
ACF estimated that money costs associated with implementing the provisions at §§ 98.16(i)(1) and 98.50(b)(3) are approximately $4.0 million on average over the phase-in period (which for this particular provision is three years, which is different than the phase-in period in the table below) and $7.0 million on average thereafter. During the phase-in period, we expect the costs of these provisions to depend on State assessment of supply gaps and costs associated with implementing the infrastructure necessary to manage the grants and contracts. As an ongoing cost, we
While using grants and contracts can build supply by providing stable payment and practices, there are other methods for building the supply quality child care. These include funding for start-up costs and financial incentives via attractive subsidy rates and Lead Agencies will be encouraged to consider a range of options for addressing supply shortages in their State.
The changes made by the CCDBG Act and the proposed rule have three primary beneficiaries: Children in care funded by CCDF (currently 1.4 million), their families who need the assistance to work, pursue education or to go to school/training, and the roughly 415,000 child care providers that care for and educate these children. But the effect of these changes will go far beyond those children who directly participate in CCDF and will accrue benefits to children, families, and society at large. Many providers who serve children receiving CCDF subsidies also serve private-paying families, and all children in the care of these providers will be safer because of the new CCDF health and safety requirements. Further, the requirements for background checks and monitoring extend beyond just CCDF providers. The public at large also benefits when there is stable, high quality child care in cost savings due to greater family work stability; lower rates of child morbidity and injury; fewer special education placements and less need for remedial education; reduced juvenile delinquency; and higher school completion rates.
In 2012, approximately 60 percent of children age 5 and younger not enrolled in kindergarten were in at least one weekly non-parental care arrangement. (U.S. Department of Education,
While there are many benefits to children, families, providers and society from affordable, higher quality child care, there are challenges to quantifying their impact. CCDF provides flexibility to States, Territories, and Tribes in setting health and safety standards, eligibility, payment rates, and quality improvements. As a result, there is much variation in CCDF programs across States. Therefore, we do not have a strong basis for estimating the magnitude of the benefits of the CCDBG Act and the proposed rule in dollar amounts. While we are not quantifying benefits in this analysis, we welcome comment on ways to measure the benefit that the Act and the proposed rule will have on children, families, child care providers, and the public.
As shown in the discussion below, there is evidence that the CCDBG Act and proposed rule's improvements to health and safety, quality of children's experiences, and stability of assistance for parents and providers will have a significant positive return on the public's investment in child care. We discuss these benefits as “packages” of improvements: (1) Health and safety; (2) consumer information and education; (3) family work stability; (4) child outcomes; and (5) provider stability.
One of the most substantial changes made by this proposed rule is a package of health and safety improvements, including health and safety requirements in specific topic areas, health and safety training, background checks, and monitoring and pre-inspections.
The CCDBG Act and the proposed rule are expected to lead to a reduction in the risk of child morbidity and injuries in child care. The most recent study on fatalities occurring in child care found 1,326 child deaths from 1985 through 2003. The study also showed variation in fatality rates based on strength of licensing requirements and suggested that licensing not only raises standards of quality, but serves as an important mechanism for identifying high-risk facilities that pose the greatest risk to child safety. (Dreby, J., Wrigley, J., Fatalities and the Organization of Child Care in the United States, 1985-2003, American Sociological Review, 2005) ACF collects data about the number of child care injuries and fatalities through the Quality Performance Report (QPR) in the CCDF Plan (ACF-118). In 2014, there were 93 child deaths in child care based on data reported by 50 States and Territories. The number of serious injuries to children in child care in 2014 was 11,047, with 35 States and Territories reporting.
Various media outlets have also conducted investigations of unsafe child care and deaths of children. In Minnesota, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis reported in a series of articles in 2012 that the number of children dying in child care facilities “had risen sharply in the past five years, from incidents that include asphyxia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and unexplained causes.” The report found 51 children died in Minnesota over the five-year period. (Star Tribune,
With respect to morbidity, 20 percent of SIDS deaths occur while children are in child care. (Moon, R.Y., Sprague, B.M., and Patel, K.M.,
In addition to the tragedy of injuries and fatalities in child care, there are tangible costs such as medical care, a parent's absence from work to tend to an injured child, the loss for the family, and loss of lifetime potential earnings for society. According to the 2014 Quality Performance Report, there were 11,407 injuries (defined as needing professional medical attention) and 93 fatalities reported in child care. We believe these numbers are lower than the actual incidences because some Lead Agencies have difficulty accessing this information collected by other agencies.
As one research study said, “Child care markets would work more effectively if parents had access to more information about program quality and help finding a suitable situation. This would cut the cost of searching for care and increase the likelihood of more comparison shopping by parents.” (Helburn, S. and Bergmann, B.,
The consumer education package also provides benefits to parents in regards to the value of their time. Most parents want to know about health and safety records, licensing compliance, and quality ratings when deciding on a child care provider. However, this research can be very time consuming because of barriers to accessing the information needed to make a fully informed decision. For example, while all Lead Agencies must make substantiated complaints available to the public, some States previously required that people go to a government office during regular business hours to access these records. It is not reasonable to expect a parent who is working to take that time to navigate these bureaucratic requirements.
The proposed rule's package of consumer education provisions, including the consumer-friendly Web site, addresses the aforementioned information barrier by helping to provide parents with important resources in a manner that fits their needs.
The CCDBG Act and the proposed rule promote continuity of care in the CCDF program through family-friendly policies—it requires Lead Agencies to implement minimum 12-month eligibility redetermination periods, ensures that parents who lose their jobs do not immediately lose their subsidy, minimizes requirements for families to report changes in circumstances, and provides more flexibility to serve vulnerable populations, such as children experiencing homelessness, without regard to income or work requirements.
Studies show a relationship between child care instability and employers' dependability of a stable workforce. In one study, 54 percent of employers reported that child care services had a positive impact on employee absenteeism, reducing missed workdays by as much as 20 to 30 percent. (Friedman, D.E.,
These child care disruptions can negatively impact parental employment. For example, a survey of over 200 mothers working in the restaurant industry in five cities: Chicago, Washington, DC, Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York found that instability in child care arrangements negatively affected their ability to work desirable shifts or to move into better paying positions at the restaurant. More than half of the mothers surveyed lacked alternative child care options, which could lead to being late or having to leave early from work if there was a problem with their child care. (Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, et al.,
Beyond implementing health and safety standards, the CCDBG Act states that two of the purposes of the grants are improving child development of participating children and increasing the number and percentage of low-income children in high-quality child care settings. This proposed rule places significant emphasis on policies that support those goals.
Recognizing the importance of quality as well as access, the CCDBG Act and this proposed rule promote efforts to improve the quality of child care. Chief among these changes is the increased portion of the grant that a Lead Agency must use, at a minimum, for quality improvements. The reauthorized Act increases the prior minimum four percent quality spending requirement to nine percent over time. It also requires States to invest in quality by spending an additional 3 percent for infant and toddler quality. States use the quality dollars for a range of activities that benefit children and providers assisted with CCDF funds and for early childhood systems as a whole, such as State early learning guidelines, professional development, technical assistance such as coaching and mentoring as part of the quality rating and improvement system, scholarships for postsecondary education, and upgrades to materials and equipment.
A critical element in the quality of child care is the knowledge and skill of the child care workforce. The CCDBG Act and the proposed rule emphasize the importance of States creating and supporting a progression of professional development, starting with pre-service, and which may include postsecondary education. Quality professional development is critical to creating a workforce that can support children's readiness for success in school and in later years.
States have a variety of ways to build the supply of high quality care including financial incentives and the use of grants and contracts. The CCDBG Act requires the Plan to provide assurances that parents of eligible children who receive or are offered child care assistance are given the option of enrolling with a provider that has a grant or contract or a child care certificate. Without limiting or discouraging the use of certificates to provide assistance to families, the proposed rule does note the role that grants or contracts can play in building the supply and quality of child care, particularly in underserved areas and for special populations. Currently 20 States are using grants or contracts along with certificates as part of a mixed funding system. Some provide grants or contracts to increase the supply of providers serving children with special needs, infants and toddlers, school-age children, or underserved geographic areas. Other States are providing grants or contracts to providers that meet and sustain higher standards of quality.
As detailed above, there is a growing amount of evidence and recognition that children who experience high quality early childhood programs are more likely to be better prepared in language, literacy, math and social skills when they enter school, and that these may have lasting positive impacts through adulthood. Because of the strong relationship between early experiences and later success, investments in improving the quality of early childhood and before- and after-school programs can pay large dividends.
The CCDBG Act and proposed rule include provisions to strengthen the stability of providers serving CCDF-assisted children. Studies that have interviewed child care providers participating in the subsidy system have shown the importance of policies that improve and stabilize payments to the providers. (Sandstrom, H, Grazi, J., and Henly, J.R.,
In addition to rates that reflect the cost of providing quality services, the manner in which providers are paid is important to the stability of the child care industry. Provider instability has a domino effect that can lead to parent employment instability, an outcome that undercuts the CCDBG Act's core principle of ensuring that CCDF children have equal access to child care that is comparable to non-CCDF families.
The CCDBG Act and the proposed rule require Lead Agencies to pay providers in a timely manner based on generally accepted payment practices for non-CCDF providers. Lead Agencies also must de-link provider payments from children's absences to the extent practicable. Child care providers have many fixed costs, such as salaries, utilities, rent or mortgage.
Surveys and focus groups with child care providers have found that some providers experience problems with late payments, including issues with receiving the full payment on time and difficulties resolving payment disputes. (Adams, G., Rohacek, M., and Snyder, K.,
A report from the National Women's Law Center on State subsidy policies states that, “only one state had reimbursement rates at the federally recommended level in 2014, a slight decrease from the three states with rates at the recommended level in 2013, and a significant decrease from the twenty-two states with rates at the recommended level in 2001. Thirty-seven States had higher reimbursement rates for higher-quality providers in 2014—an increase from thirty-three states in 2013. However, in more than three-quarters of these states, even the higher rates were below the federally recommended level in 2014.” (Turning the Corner: State Child Care Policies 2014. Schulman, K. and Blank, H. National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC 2014) The CCDBG Act and the proposed rule require Lead Agencies to set provider payment rates based on the current, valid market rate survey or alternative methodology. To allow for equal access, the rule proposes that Lead Agencies set base payment rates sufficient to support implementation of the health, safety and quality requirements in the NPRM. Establishing base rates at these levels is important to ensure that providers have the resources they need to meet minimum requirements and that providers are not discouraged from serving CCDF children. With subsidy payments higher than the aforementioned base rate, providers can exceed the minimum requirements of health and safety and quality. In doing so, more providers will be able to serve CCDF-assisted children and more quality providers may decide to participate in the subsidy system—giving parents more choices for their children's care. Currently there has been a downward trend in the number of CCDF providers, and providing for a stronger base rate will help mitigate this effect.
As part of our regulatory analysis, we considered whether changes would disproportionately benefit or harm a particular subpopulation. As discussed above, benefits accrue both directly and indirectly to society. In order to implement the requirements of the CCDBG Act and the NPRM, States may have to make key decisions about the allocation of resources, and some may shift priorities during the start-up phase and possibly continuing in later years once the State is fully implementing these requirements. The true impact partially depends on the overall funding level. The President's FY2016 Budget request includes additional funding to help States implement the policies required by the reauthorized CCDBG Act and this proposed rule, as well as significant new resources across a ten year period to expand access to child care assistance for all eligible families with children under age four years of age. If funding increases sufficiently, both quality and access could be improved.
While, depending on State behavior, there may be some distributional effect related to any cost, below is a discussion of two policy areas that represent specific distributional effects. The first—changes to subsidy policy required by the CCDBG Act—may result (depending on how the State chooses to implement the policy) in families receiving subsidies for a longer period of time, while other families may not be able to access subsidies (absent an increase in funding for the CCDF program). The second area—increased statutory quality spending requirements—may result in a change in which families receive benefits, or how they receive them, by shifting resources away from direct services to quality spending.
Based on qualitative research and discussions with CCDF participants, we expect that longer eligibility periods, and the related policies in the Act and this rule, will increase the average length of time that participating families receive child care subsidies. As part of this RIA, we used CCDF administrative data to model the policy change in the Act and proposed rule wherein all States would have a minimum of 12-month eligibility periods, to predict whether CCDF families would have longer participation durations and whether there would be any impact on the unduplicated number of families receiving CCDF assistance. The calculations in this estimate are informed by a demonstration project that randomly assigned working Illinois families with moderate incomes (
We also examined a “natural experiment” in Georgia, which changed its recertification period from six months to 12 months in April 2009. A preliminary analysis found that families had longer spell lengths after the policy change than families that entered care before the policy change. Although it is uncertain what the driving factor for this was, these findings from Georgia support the hypothesis that longer recertification periods increase the number of months that recipient families participate in the program.
Assuming that States will maintain their average monthly caseloads once they implement the 12-month recertification periods, but will serve fewer unique children over that time period because of longer subsidy participation durations, we estimated the number of families that could be impacted at current funding levels. Decreased churn would not decrease the amount of assistance given, but may result in a decrease in the total number of families served over the course of a given year. We used disaggregated CCDF administrative data from FY 2010 (to determine the ratio between unique annual counts and average monthly caseloads) and average monthly caseload totals from FY 2012 (which showed 609,800 children being served in an annual month in the 25 States with eligibility periods less than 12 months). With this data, we estimated the unique caseload size of each State in FY 2012, which is the last year for which we have caseload estimates and documentation of policies (which showed 1,053,773 unique children received services at some point during the year in the 25 States). Based on these assumptions and using the results from the Illinois study to estimate the impact on length of subsidy receipt, we estimate that the reduction in unique children served in a given year after the policy change will be approximately 162,000 children.
We do not expect the increase the quality set-aside to have a significant impact on caseload, particularly since the majority of states are already spending more than the new 9% quality set-aside requirement (see Table 9 below). Others will have time to phase-in the increases and will likely use these additional increases to cover several of the new health and safety and professional development requirements. Therefore, any caseload impact would have already been included in the costs associated with those provisions. However, we recognize some Lead Agencies will have to reallocate funds currently being used for other activities, including direct services, so we are discussing possible distributional effects here. Currently, about 12 percent of CCDF expenditures are spent on quality improvement activities, including targeted funds included in appropriations. This amount is equivalent to the full percentage to be set aside for the quality and infant and toddler set-asides in FY 2020, once fully phased-in. Therefore, we do not expect a significant change in the national percentage of funds spent on quality activities, including those targeted at infants and toddlers. However, this is a national figure and may not provide a complete picture of how many States and Territories might have to adjust their quality expenditures to meet new requirements.
Using FY 2011 CCDF expenditure data, we did an analysis of the number of States and Territories that will have to increase their quality expenditures in order to meet the requirements in the CCDBG Act and incorporated into this proposed rule at § 98.50(b)(1). (Note: Compliance with spending requirements is determined after a full grant award is complete. States and Territories have three years to complete their grant awards. Therefore, the most recent award year for which we have data is FY 2011.) We included regular quality expenditures as well as the amount of funds spent for the “quality expansion” and “school-age/resource and referral” targeted funds. The infant and toddler targeted funds were not included in this analysis because they have now been incorporated into the statute. Instead, we have a separate analysis of the new infant and toddler set-aside below. Below is a summary of the number of States and Territories at different amounts of quality expenditures:
Based on this data, 39 States will not have to adjust the percent of funds they expend on quality activities, while five States and Territories will have to increase the percent of funds they spend on quality activities by FY 2016. For the other States and Territories, it varies when each will need to change the amount they spend on quality activities—10 States will have to adjust by FY 2018 to meet the eight percent requirement; and 17 States will have to adjust by FY 2020 to meet the nine percent requirement.
In addition to the primary set-aside for quality activities, this NPRM incorporates at § 98.50(b)(2) a new requirement of the CCDBG Act that, beginning in FY 2017 and each succeeding fiscal year, Lead Agencies must expend at least three percent of their full awards (including discretionary, mandatory, and federal and State matching funds) on activities that relates to the care of infants and toddlers. Since FY 2001, federal appropriations law has included a requirement for Lead Agencies to spend a certain amount of discretionary funds on activities to improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers. In FY 2015, this set-aside was $102 million. The new three percent reservation represents an increase to about $237 million based on FY 2011 State and Territory expenditures.
Lead Agencies do not currently report how much of their general quality funds are spent on activities targeted to improving care for infants and toddlers. Therefore, we only have the amount of targeted funds they spent on infant and toddler activities, which for all but five States and Territories is below the new three percent requirement. The increase necessary ranges from State to State, from $38,000 for Idaho to $21 million for New York. The average increase will be $2.5 million per State. However, as these estimates do not include any regular quality funds currently used to improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers, they are likely overestimating the required increases for the majority of States and Territories.
In developing this proposed rule, we considered alternative ways to meet the purposes of the reauthorized CCDBG Act. There are areas of the CCDBG Act that we are interpreting and proposing to clarify through this rule. Our interpretation of the law remains within the legal parameters of the statute and is consistent with the goals and purposes of the law. Below we include a discussion of areas that we clarified through the proposed rule: Background checks for regulated and registered providers and background checks for non-caregivers.
For the purposes of this analysis, we are discussing the costs, benefits, and potential caseload impacts related to meeting these new requirements. However, it is particularly difficult to predict caseload impact due to a variety of unknown factors, including future federal funding levels. Even if we were to assume level federal funding, States could allocate new funds, redirect current quality spending (
The alternative to this policy would be to limit background checks to only providers receiving CCDF assistance. While we acknowledge that others may interpret the statute differently; however, we firmly believe that there is justification for applying this requirement in the broadest terms for two important reasons. First, it is our strong belief that all parents using child care deserve this basic protection of knowing that those who are trusted with the care of their children do not have criminal backgrounds that may endanger the well-being of their children.
Second, limiting those child care providers who are subject to background checks, has the potential to severely restrict parental choice and equal access for CCDF children. If all child care providers are not subject to comprehensive background checks, providers could opt to not serve CCDF children thereby restricting access. Creating a bifurcated system in which CCDF children have access to only a portion of child care providers who meet applicable standards would be incongruous with the purposes of the CCDBG Act and would not serve to advance the important goal of serving more low-income children in high quality care.
Choosing this would present additional costs to the alternative of limiting background checks to only CCDF providers. The cost of the background check requirement for only CCDF providers would be approximately $11.9 million per year (estimated using a 3% discount rate). Using the methodology discussed in detail in the background check section of the preamble, we estimate the additional cost of requiring background checks of all licensed and regulated providers, rather than just those who are eligible to deliver CCDF services, to be approximately $1.7 million annually (estimated using a 3% discount rate), which would amount to an upper bound caseload impact of about 300 fewer children served per year.
More than forty States require some type of background check of family members 18 years of age or older that
While the total cost of the background check requirement is approximately $13.6 million, we can isolate the costs of applying the background checks to non-caregiver individuals, we estimate the cost to be approximately $3 million annually (estimated using a 3% discount rate), which would amount to a upper bound caseload impact of approximately 550 fewer children served per year.
This section estimates the potential benefits associated with the elimination of injuries and deaths in child care settings in the United States, and the proportion of fatalities and injuries, which, if eliminated by the provisions discussed here, would justify their costs on their own. Standard methods are used to monetize the value of these potential benefits. Although children receiving subsidies through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) are the individuals that will likely benefit most from the rule's overall health and safety provisions, we conduct this break even analysis using data on children in all child care settings since children in non-CCDF arrangements will directly benefit from the extension of background check requirements and may see additional benefits as a result of other health and safety and quality provisions in the proposed rule. As described above, the primary regulatory alternative in implementing health and safety provisions would be to restrict background checks provisions. Therefore, this analysis discusses the costs and benefits of the proposed rule relative to that alternative.
The benefits estimated for this analysis are derived from voluntary data reporting on fatalities and injuries in the child care setting to ACF in a Quality Performance Report (QPR). These figures are supplemented by data from several other sources. Although many States contribute data to the QPR report, data on fatalities and injuries is not available for all States. To estimate fatalities and injuries in the child care setting at the national level in 2014 using the QPR data, we impute estimated fatalities and injuries for States with incomplete reports. For States with no reported data for 2014, we assume that the injury or fatality rate per provider is equal to the average injury or fatality rate per provider across States with available 2014 data.
To monetize benefits from reductions in injury rates, we rely on data on the cost of injury from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In particular, we use CDC data to calculate the cost of non-fatal injuries resulting in emergency room treatment and/or hospitalization for children age 12 and under, which includes medical costs as well as lost productivity costs for caretakers, based on 2012 data.
To monetize the value of reductions in mortality rates, we use estimates of the number of child fatalities in child care settings and information on the value of a statistical life for children. The number of child fatalities in the child care setting is estimated by combining two numbers: (1) The number of fatalities due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and (2) the number of fatalities due to causes other than SIDS. These two numbers are estimated separately because SIDS is one type of fatality that is likely to be impacted by the health and safety provisions in the law and because the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
The number of non-SIDS deaths in 2014 is estimated based on QPR data. Information on cause of death were reported for 18 deaths in the 2014 QPR data, of which 5 were due to SIDS and 13 were due to other causes. Based on this information, we estimate that 72 percent of deaths in child care settings reported in QPR data were due to causes other than SIDS. After adding the 82 fatalities from non-SIDS as reported in the QPR data to the 231 fatalities from SIDS, we arrive at a sum of 313 fatalities in child care settings.
A 2010 study estimates that the value of a statistical life for children to be $12-15 million.
Next, we estimate the proportion of fatalities and injuries which, if
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an accounting statement table showing the classification of the impacts associated with implementation of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to determine whether a regulation may negatively impact family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. This rule will not have a negative impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, we conclude that it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment. In fact, the proposed rule will have positive benefits by improving health and safety protections and the quality of care that children receive, as well as improving transparency for parents about the child care options available to the so they can make more informed child care decisions. This rule also increases continuity of care and stability through family-friendly practices.
Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to consult with Tribal leaders and Tribal officials early in the process of developing regulations and prior to the formal promulgation of the regulations. Agencies also must include a Tribal impact statement, which includes a description of the agency's prior consultation with Tribal officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of Tribal officials have been met. ACF is committed to continued consultation and collaboration with Tribes, and this proposed rule meets the requirements of Executive Order 13175. The discussion of subpart I in section IV of the preamble serves as the Tribal impact statement and contains a detailed description of the consultation and outreach on this proposed rule.
Child care, Grant programs-social programs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend part 98 of 45 CFR as follows:
42 U.S.C. 618, 9858.
(a) The purposes of the CCDF are:
(1) To allow each State maximum flexibility in developing child care programs and policies that best suit the needs of children and parents within that State;
(2) To promote parental choice to empower working parents to make their own decisions regarding the child care services that best suits their family's needs;
(3) To encourage States to provide consumer education information to help parents make informed choices about child care services and to promote involvement by parents and family members in the development of their children in child care settings;
(4) To assist States in delivering high-quality, coordinated early childhood care and education services to maximize parents' options and support parents trying to achieve independence from public assistance;
(5) To assist States in improving the overall quality of child care services and programs by implementing the health, safety, licensing, training, and oversight standards established in this subchapter and in State law (including State regulations);
(6) To improve child care and development of participating children; and
(7) To increase the number and percentage of low-income children in high-quality child care settings.
(b) The purpose of these regulations is to provide the basis for administration of the Fund. These regulations provide that State, Territorial, and Tribal Lead Agencies:
(1) Maximize parental choice of safe, healthy and nurturing child care settings through the use of certificates and through grants and contracts, and by providing parents with information about child care programs;
(2) Include in their programs a broad range of child care providers, including center-based care, family child care, in-home care, care provided by relatives and sectarian child care providers;
(3) Improve the quality and supply of child care and before- and after-school care services that meet applicable requirements and promote child development and learning and family economic stability;
(4) Coordinate planning and delivery of services at all levels, including Federal, State, Tribal, and local;
(5) Design flexible programs that provide for the changing needs of recipient families and engage families in their children's development and learning;
(6) Administer the CCDF responsibly to ensure that statutory requirements are met and that adequate information regarding the use of public funds is provided;
(7) Design programs that provide uninterrupted service to families and providers, to the extent statutorily possible, to support parental education, training, and employment and continuity of care that minimizes disruptions to children's learning and development;
(8) Provide a progression of training and professional development opportunities for caregivers, teachers,
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) A child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401);
(2) A child who is eligible for early intervention services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431
(3) A child who is less than 13 years of age and who is eligible for services under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794); or
(4) A child with a disability, as defined by the State, Territory or Tribe involved;
(1) Who is less than 13 years of age;
(2) Whose family income does not exceed 85 percent of the State median income for a family of the same size, and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000 (as certified by a member of such family); and
(3) Who—
(i) Resides with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or
(ii) Is receiving, or needs to receive, protective services and resides with a parent or parents not described in paragraph (3)(i) of this definition;
(1) A center-based child care provider, a family child care provider, an in-home child care provider, or other provider of child care services for compensation that—
(i) Is licensed, regulated, or registered under applicable State or local law as described in § 98.40; and
(ii) Satisfies State and local requirements, including those referred to in § 98.41 applicable to the child care services it provides; or
(2) A child care provider who is 18 years of age or older who provides child care services only to eligible children who are, by marriage, blood relationship, or court decree, the grandchild, great grandchild, siblings (if such provider lives in separate residence), niece, or nephew of such provider, and complies with any applicable requirements that govern child care provided by the relative involved;
The Lead Agency (which may be an appropriate collaborative agency), or a joint interagency office, as designated or established by the Governor of the State (or by the appropriate Tribal leader or applicant), shall:
(d) Hold at least one public hearing in accordance with § 98.14(c);
(e) Coordinate CCDF services pursuant to § 98.12; and
(f) Consult, collaborate, and coordinate in the development of the State Plan in a timely manner with Indian Tribes or tribal organizations in the State (at the option of the Tribe or tribal organization).
(a) * * *
(3) * * * The contents of the written agreement may vary based on the role the agency is asked to assume or the type of project undertaken, but must include, at a minimum, tasks to be performed, a schedule for completing tasks, a budget which itemizes categorical expenditures consistent with CCDF requirements at § 98.65(h), and indicators or measures to assess performance.
(b) * * *
(5) Oversee the expenditure of funds by subgrantees and contractors, in accordance with 75 CFR parts 351 through 353;
(c) Coordinate, to the maximum extent feasible, per § 98.10(f) with any Indian Tribes in the State receiving CCDF funds in accordance with subpart I of this part.
(a)(1) Coordinate the provision of services funded under this part with other Federal, State, and local child care and early childhood development programs (including such programs for the benefit of Indian children, infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, children experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care) to expand accessibility and continuity of care as well as full-day services. The Lead Agency shall also coordinate the provision of services with the State, and if applicable, tribal agencies responsible for:
(C) Public education (including agencies responsible for pre-kindergarten services, if applicable, and educational services provided under Part B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400));
(D) Providing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
(E) Child care licensing;
(F) Head Start collaboration, as authorized by the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831
(G) State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (designated or established pursuant to the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831
(H) Statewide after-school network or other coordinating entity for out-of-school time care (if applicable);
(I) Emergency management and response;
(J) Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) authorized by the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766);
(K) Services for children experiencing homelessness, including State Coordinators of Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY State Coordinators) and, to the extent practicable, local liaisons designated by Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) in the State as required by the McKinney-Vento Act (42 U.S.C. 11432) and Continuum of Care grantees;
(L) Medicaid authorized by title XIX of the Social Security Act; and
(M) Mental health services.
(3) If the Lead Agency elects to combine funding for CCDF services with any other early childhood program, provide a description in the CCDF Plan of how the Lead Agency will combine and use the funding.
(4) Demonstrate in the CCDF Plan how the State, Territory, or Tribe encourages partnerships among its agencies, other public agencies, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, and private entities, including faith-based and community-based organizations, to leverage existing service delivery systems for child care and development services and to increase the supply and quality of child care and development services and to increase the supply and quality of child care services for children who are less than 13 years of age, such as by implementing voluntary shared service alliance models.
(d) Make the Plan and any Plan amendments publicly available.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) That if expenditures for pre-Kindergarten services are used to meet the maintenance-of-effort requirement, the State has not reduced its level of effort in full-day/full-year child care services, pursuant to § 98.55(h)(1).
(7) Training and professional development requirements comply with § 98.44 and are applicable to caregivers, teaching staff, and directors working for child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF.
(8) To the extent practicable, enrollment and eligibility policies support the fixed costs of providing child care services by delinking provider payment rates from an eligible child's occasional absences in accordance with § 98.45(m).
(9) The State will maintain or implement early learning and developmental guidelines that are developmentally appropriate for all children from birth to kindergarten entry, describing what such children should know and be able to do, and covering the essential domains of early childhood development (cognition, including language arts and mathematics; social, emotional and physical development; and approaches toward learning) for use statewide by child care providers and caregivers. Such guidelines shall—
(i) Be research-based and developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate, building in a forward progression, and aligned with entry to kindergarten;
(ii) Be implemented in consultation with the State educational agency and the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (designated or established pursuant to section 642B(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)(1)(A)(i)) or similar coordinating body, and in consultation with child development and content experts; and
(iii) Be updated as determined by the State.
(10) Funds received by the State to carry out this subchapter will not be used to develop or implement an assessment for children that—
(i) Will be the primary or sole basis for a child care provider being determined to be ineligible to participate in the program carried out under this subchapter;
(ii) Will be used as the primary or sole basis to provide a reward or sanction for an individual provider;
(iii) Will be used as the primary or sole method for assessing program effectiveness; or
(iv) Will be used to deny children eligibility to participate in the program carried out under this subchapter.
(11) Any code or software for child care information systems or information technology that a Lead Agency or other agency expends CCDF funds to develop must be made available upon request to other public agencies for their use in administering child care or related programs.
(b) The Lead Agency shall include the following certifications in its CCDF Plan:
(1) The State has developed the CCDF Plan in consultation with the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (designated or established pursuant to section 642B(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)(1)(A)(i))) or similar coordinating body, pursuant to § 98.14(a)(1)(G);
(2) In accordance with § 98.31, it has procedures in place to ensure that providers of child care services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF, afford parents unlimited access to their children and to the providers caring for their children, during the normal hours of operations and whenever such children are in the care of such providers;
(3) As required by § 98.32, the State maintains a record of substantiated parental complaints and makes information regarding such complaints available to the public on request;
(4) It will collect and disseminate to parents of eligible children, the general public and, where applicable, child care providers, consumer education information that will promote informed child care choices, information on access to other programs for which families may be eligible, and information on developmental screenings, as required by § 98.33;
(5) In accordance with § 98.33(a), that the State makes public through a consumer-friendly and easily accessible Web site the results of monitoring and inspection reports, as well as the number of deaths, serious injuries, and instances of substantiated child abuse that occurred in child care settings;
(6) There are in effect licensing requirements applicable to child care services provided within the State, pursuant to § 98.40;
(7) There are in effect within the State (or other area served by the Lead Agency), under State or local (or tribal) law, requirements designed to protect the health and safety of children that are applicable to child care providers that provide services for which assistance is made available under the CCDF, pursuant to § 98.41;
(8) In accordance with § 98.42(a), procedures are in effect to ensure that child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF comply with all applicable State or local (or tribal) health and safety requirements;
(9) Caregivers, teachers, and directors of child care providers comply with the State's, Territory's, or Tribe's procedures for reporting child abuse and neglect as required by section 106(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(i)) or other child abuse reporting procedures and laws in the service area, as required by § 98.41(e);
(10) There are in effect monitoring policies and practices pursuant to § 98.42;
(11) Payment rates for the provision of child care services, in accordance with § 98.45, are sufficient to ensure equal access for eligible children to comparable child care services in the State or sub-State area that are provided to children whose parents are not eligible to receive assistance under this program or under any other Federal or State child care assistance programs;
(12) Payment practices of child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF reflect generally accepted payment practices of child care providers that serve children who do not receive CCDF assistance, pursuant to § 98.45(m); and
(13) There are in effect policies to govern the use and disclosure of confidential and personally-identifiable information about children and families receiving CCDF assistance and child care providers receiving CCDF funds.
A CCDF Plan shall contain the following:
(a) Specification of the Lead Agency whose duties and responsibilities are delineated in § 98.10;
(b) A description of processes the Lead Agency will use to monitor administrative and implementation responsibilities undertaken by agencies other than the Lead Agency including descriptions of written agreements, monitoring and auditing procedures, and indicators or measures to assess performance pursuant to § 98.11(a)(3);
(c) The assurances and certifications listed under § 98.15;
(d)(1) A description of how the CCDF program will be administered and implemented, if the Lead Agency does not directly administer and implement the program;
(2) Identification of the public or private entities designated to receive private donated funds and the purposes for which such funds will be expended, pursuant to § 98.55(f);
(e) A description of the coordination and consultation processes involved in the development of the Plan and the provision of services, including a description of public-private partnership activities that promote business involvement in meeting child care needs pursuant to § 98.14;
(f) A description of the public hearing process, pursuant to § 98.14(c);
(g) Definitions of the following terms for purposes of determining eligibility, pursuant to §§ 98.20(a) and 98.46:
(1) Special needs child;
(2) Physical or mental incapacity (if applicable);
(3) Attending (a job training or educational program);
(4) Job training and educational program;
(5) Residing with;
(6) Working;
(7) Protective services (if applicable), including whether children in foster care are considered in protective services for purposes of child care eligibility; and whether respite care is provided to custodial parents of children in protective services.
(8) Very low income; and
(9) In loco parentis;
(h) A description and demonstration of eligibility determination and redetermination processes to promote continuity of care for children and stability for families receiving CCDF services, including:
(1) An eligibility redetermination period of no less than 12 months in accordance with § 98.21(a);
(2) A graduated phaseout for families whose income exceeds the Lead Agency's threshold to initially qualify for CCDF assistance, but does not exceed 85 percent of State median income, pursuant to § 98.21(b);
(3) Processes that take into account irregular fluctuation in earnings, pursuant to § 98.21(c);
(4) Procedures and policies to ensure that parents are not required to unduly disrupt their education, training, or employment to complete eligibility redetermination, pursuant to § 98.21(d);
(5) Limiting any requirements to report changes in circumstances in accordance with § 98.21(e);
(6) Policies that take into account children's development and learning when authorizing child care services pursuant to § 98.21(f); and
(7) Other policies and practices such as timely eligibility determination and processing of applications;
(i) For child care services pursuant to § 98.50:
(1) A description of such services and activities, including how the Lead Agency will address supply shortages through the use of grants and contracts. The description should identify shortages in the supply of high quality child care providers, including for specific localities and populations, list the data sources used to identify shortages, and explain how grants or contracts for direct services will be used to address such shortages;
(2) Any limits established for the provision of in-home care and the reasons for such limits pursuant to § 98.30(e)(1)(iii);
(3) A list of political subdivisions in which such services and activities are offered, if such services and activities are not available throughout the entire service area;
(4) A description of how the Lead Agency will meet the needs of certain families specified at § 98.50(e);
(5) Any additional eligibility criteria, priority rules, and definitions established pursuant to § 98.20(b);
(j) A description of the activities to provide comprehensive consumer and provider education, including the posting of monitoring and inspection reports, pursuant to § 98.33, to increase
(k) A description of the sliding fee scale(s) (including any factors other than income and family size used in establishing the fee scale(s)) that provide(s) for cost-sharing by the families that receive child care services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF and how co-payments are affordable for families, pursuant to § 98.45(k). This shall include a description of the criteria established by the Lead Agency, if any, for waiving contributions for families;
(l) A description of the health and safety requirements, applicable to all providers of child care services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF, in effect pursuant to § 98.41, and any exemptions to those requirements for relative providers made in accordance with § 98.42(c);
(m) A description of child care standards for child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF, in accordance with § 98.41(d), that includes group size limits, child-staff ratios, and required qualifications for caregivers, teachers, and directors;
(n) A description of monitoring and other enforcement procedures in effect to ensure that child care providers comply with applicable health and safety requirements pursuant to § 98.42;
(o) A description of criminal background check requirements, policies, and procedures in accordance with § 98.43, including of description of the requirements, policies, and procedures in place to respond to other States', Territories', and Tribes' requests for background check results in order to accommodate the 45 day timeframe;
(p) A description of training and professional development requirements for caregivers, teaching staff, and directors of providers of services for which assistance is provided in accordance with § 98.44;
(q) A description of the child care certificate payment system(s), including the form or forms of the child care certificate, pursuant to § 98.30(c);
(r) Payment rates and a summary of the facts, including a biennial local market rate survey or alternative methodology relied upon to determine that the rates provided are sufficient to ensure equal access pursuant to § 98.45;
(s) A detailed description of the State's hotline for complaints, its process for responding to complaints, how the State maintains a record of substantiated parental complaints, and how it makes information regarding those complaints available to the public on request, pursuant to § 98.32;
(t) A detailed description of the procedures in effect for affording parents unlimited access to their children whenever their children are in the care of the provider, pursuant to § 98.31;
(u) A detailed description of the licensing requirements applicable to child care services provided, any exemption to licensing requirements that is applicable to child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF and a demonstration why such exemption does not endanger the health, safety, or development of children, and a description of how such licensing requirements are effectively enforced, pursuant to § 98.40;
(v) Pursuant to § 98.33(e), the definitions or criteria used to implement the exception, provided in section 407(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, to individual penalties in the TANF work requirement applicable to a single custodial parent caring for a child under age six;
(w)(1) When any Matching funds under § 98.55(b) are claimed, a description of the efforts to ensure that pre-Kindergarten programs meet the needs of working parents;
(2) When State pre-Kindergarten expenditures are used to meet more than 10% of the amount required at § 98.55(c)(1), or for more than 10% of the funds available at § 98.55(b), or both, a description of how the State will coordinate its pre-Kindergarten and child care services to expand the availability of child care;
(x) A description of the Lead Agency's strategies (which may include alternative payment rates to child care providers, the provision of direct grants or contracts, offering child care certificates, or other means) to increase the supply and improve the quality of child care services for children in underserved areas, infants and toddlers, children with disabilities as defined by the Lead Agency, and children who receive care during nontraditional hours;
(y) A description of how the Lead Agency prioritizes increasing access to high quality child care and development services for children of families in areas that have significant concentrations of poverty and unemployment and that do not have sufficient numbers of such programs, pursuant to § 98.46;
(z) A description of how the Lead Agency develops and implements strategies to strengthen the business practices of child care providers to expand the supply, and improve the quality of, child care services;
(aa) A demonstration of how the State, Territory or Tribe will address the needs of children, including the need for safe child care, before, during and after a state of emergency declared by the Governor or a major disaster or emergency (as defined by section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5122) through a Statewide Disaster Plan (or Disaster Plan for a Tribe's service area) that:
(1) For a State, is developed in collaboration with the State human services agency, the State emergency management agency, the State licensing agency, the State health department or public health department, local and State child care resource and referral agencies, and the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (designated or established pursuant to section 642B(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)(1)(A)(i))) or similar coordinating body; and
(2) Includes the following components:
(i) Guidelines for continuation of child care subsidies and child care services, which may include the provision of emergency and temporary child care services during a disaster, and temporary operating standards for child care after a disaster;
(ii) Coordination of post-disaster recovery of child care services; and
(iii) Requirements that child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF, as well as other child care providers as determined appropriate by the State, Territory or Tribe, have in place:
(A) Procedures for evacuation, relocation, shelter-in-place, lock-down, communication and reunification with families, continuity of operations, accommodations of infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, and children with chronic medical conditions; and
(B) Procedures for staff and volunteer emergency preparedness training and practice drills, including training requirements for child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under CCDF at § 98.41(a)(1)(vii);
(bb) A description of payment practices applicable to providers of child care services for which assistance is provided under this part, pursuant to § 98.45(m), including practices to ensure timely payment for services, to delink provider payments from children's occasional absences to the extent
(cc) A description of internal controls to ensure integrity and accountability, processes in place to investigate and recover fraudulent payments and to impose sanctions on clients or providers in response to fraud, and procedures in place to document and verity eligibility, pursuant to § 98.68;
(dd) A description of how the Lead Agency will provide outreach and services to eligible families with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities and facilitate participation of child care providers with limited English proficiency and disabilities in the subsidy system;
(ee) A description of policies on suspension and expulsion of children birth to age five in child care and other early childhood programs receiving assistance under this part, which must be disseminated as part of consumer and provider education efforts in accordance with § 98.33(b)(1)(v);
(ff) Designation of a State, territorial, or tribal entity to which child care providers must submit reports of any serious injuries or deaths of children occurring in child care, in accordance with § 98.42(b)(4);
(gg) A description of how the Lead Agency will support child care providers in the successful engagement of families in children's learning and development;
(hh) A description of how the Lead Agency will respond to complaints submitted through the national hotline and Web site, required in the CCDBG Act of 2014 (Section 658L(b)(2)), including the designee responsible for receiving and responding to such complaints regarding both licensed and license-exempt child care providers; and
(ii) Such other information as specified by the Secretary.
(a) For States, Territories, and Indian Tribes the Plan shall cover a period of three years.
(b)
(2) Lead Agencies must ensure advanced written notice is provided to affected parties (
(a) The Secretary may waive one or more of the requirements contained in the Act or this part, with the exception of State Match and Maintenance of Effort requirements for a State, consistent with the conditions described in section 658I(c)(1) of the Act, provided that the waiver request:
(1) Describes circumstances that prevent the State, Territory, or Tribe from complying with any statutory or regulatory requirements of this part;
(2) By itself, contributes to or enhances the State's, Territory's, or Tribe's ability to carry out the purposes of the Act and this part;
(3) Will not contribute to inconsistency with the purposes of the Act or this part, and;
(4) Meets the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
(b) Types of waivers include:
(1)
(i) Limited to a one-year initial period;
(iii) May be extended, in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, for at most one additional year from the date of approval of the extension,
(iii) Are designed to provide States, Territories and Tribes at most one full legislative session to enact legislation to implement the provisions of the Act or this part, and;
(iv) May be terminated by the Secretary at any time in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(2)
(i) Limited to an initial period of no more than 2 years from the date of approval;
(ii) May be extended, in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, for at most one additional year from the date of approval of the extension, and;
(iii) May be terminated by the Secretary at any time in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Waiver requests must be submitted to the Secretary in writing and:
(1) Indicate which type of waiver, as detailed in paragraph (b) of this section, the State, Territory or Tribe is requesting;
(2) Detail each sanction or provision of the Act or regulations that the State, Territory or Tribe seeks relief from;
(3) Describe how a waiver from that sanction or provision will, by itself, improve delivery of child care services for children; and
(4) Certify and describe how the health, safety, and well-being of children served through assistance received under this part will not be compromised as a result of the waiver.
(d) Within 90 days after receipt of the waiver request or, if additional follow-up information has been requested, the receipt of such information, the Secretary will notify the Lead Agency of the approval or disapproval of the request.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Permit Lead Agencies to alter the eligibility requirements for eligible children, including work requirements, job training, or educational program participation, that apply to the parents of eligible children under this part;
(2) Waive anything related to the Secretary's authority under this part; or
(3) Require or impose any new or additional requirements in exchange for receipt of a waiver if such requirements are not specified in the Act.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) In order to be eligible for services under § 98.50, a child shall, at the time of eligibility determination or redetermination:
(1)(i) Be under 13 years of age; or,
(ii) At the option of the Lead Agency, be under age 19 and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself, or under court supervision;
(2)(i) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI), which must be based on the most recent SMI data that is published by the Bureau of the Census, for a family of the same size; and
(ii) Whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000 (as certified by such family member); and
(3)(i) Reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or
(ii) Receive, or need to receive, protective services, which may include specific populations of vulnerable children as identified by the Lead Agency, and reside with a parent or parents other than the parent(s) described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(A) At grantee option, the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section may be waived for families eligible for child care pursuant to this paragraph, if determined to be necessary on a case-by-case basis.
(B) At grantee option, the waiver provisions in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section apply to children in foster care when defined in the Plan, pursuant to § 98.16(g)(7).
(b) A grantee or other administering agency may establish eligibility conditions or priority rules in addition to those specified in this section and § 98.46, which shall be described in the Plan pursuant to § 98.16(i)(5), so long as they do not:
(4) Impact eligibility other than at the time of eligibility determination or redetermination.
(c) For purposes of implementing the citizenship eligibility verification requirements mandated by title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 8 U.S.C. 1601
(a) A Lead Agency shall redetermine a child's eligibility for child care services no sooner than 12 months following the initial determination or most recent redetermination, subject to the following:
(1) During the period of time between redeterminations, if the child met all of the requirements in § 98.20(a) on the date of the most recent eligibility determination or redetermination, the child shall be considered to be eligible and will receive services, regardless of:
(i) A change in family income, if that family income does not exceed 85 percent of SMI for a family of the same size; or
(ii) A temporary change in the ongoing status of the child's parent as working or attending a job training or educational program. A temporary change shall include, at a minimum:
(A) Any time-limited absence from work for an employed parent for periods of family leave (including parental leave) or sick leave;
(B) Any interruption in work for a seasonal worker who is not working between regular industry work seasons;
(C) Any student holiday or break for a parent participating in training or education;
(D) Any reduction in work, training or education hours, as long as the parent is still working or attending training or education;
(E) Any other cessation of work or attendance at a training or education program that does not exceed three months or a longer period of time established by the Lead Agency;
(F) Any change in age, including turning 13 years old during the eligibility period; and
(G) Any change in residency within the State, Territory, or Tribal service area.
(2) Lead Agencies have the option, but are not required, to discontinue assistance due to a parent's loss of work or cessation of attendance at a job training or educational program that does not constitute a temporary change in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. However, if the Lead Agency exercises this option, it must continue assistance at the same level for a period of not less than three months after such loss or cessation in order for the parent to engage in job search and resume work, or resume attendance at a job training or educational activity.
(3) Lead Agencies cannot increase family co-payment amounts, established in accordance with § 98.45(k), within the minimum 12-month eligibility period except as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(4) Because a child meeting eligibility requirements at the most recent eligibility determination or redetermination is considered eligible between redeterminations as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, any payment for such a child shall not be considered an error or improper payment under subpart K of this part due to a change in the family's circumstances.
(b) Lead Agencies that establish family income eligibility at a level less than 85 percent of SMI for a family of the same size (in order for a child to initially qualify for assistance) must provide a graduated phaseout by implementing two-tiered eligibility thresholds.
(1) This can be accomplished either by:
(i) Establishing the second tier of eligibility at 85 percent of SMI for a family of the same size and considering children to be eligible (pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section) if their parents, at the time of redetermination, are working or attending a job training or educational program even if their income exceeds the Lead Agency's income limit to initially quality for assistance, but does not exceed the second eligibility threshold; or
(ii) Using the approach specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section but
(2) Lead Agencies may gradually adjust co-pay amounts for families that are determined eligible under the conditions described in paragraph (b) of this section to help families transition off of child care assistance.
(c) The Lead Agency shall establish processes for initial determination and redetermination of eligibility that take into account irregular fluctuation in earnings, including policies that ensure temporary increases in income, including temporary increases that result in monthly income exceeding 85 percent of SMI (calculated on a monthly basis), do not affect eligibility or family co-payments.
(d) The Lead Agency shall establish procedures and policies to ensure parents, especially parents receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, are not required to unduly disrupt their education, training, or employment in order to complete the eligibility redetermination process.
(e) The Lead Agency shall specify in the Plan any requirements for parents to notify the Lead Agency of changes in circumstances during the minimum 12-month period, and describe efforts to ensure such requirements do not impact continuity for eligible families between redeterminations.
(1) The Lead Agency must require families to report a change at any point during the minimum 12-month period, limited to:
(i) If the family's income exceeds 85% of SMI, taking into account irregular income fluctuations; or
(ii) At the option of the Lead Agency, the family has experienced a non-temporary cessation of work, training, or education.
(2) Any requirement for parents to provide notification of changes in circumstances to the Lead Agency or entities designated to perform eligibility functions shall not constitute an undue burden on families. Any such requirements shall:
(i) Limit notification requirements to items that impact a family's eligibility (
(ii) Not require an office visit in order to fulfill notification requirements; and
(iii) Offer a range of notification options (
(3) During a period of graduated phase-out, the Lead Agency may require additional reporting on changes in family income in order to gradually adjust family co-payments, if desired, as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(4) Lead Agencies must allow families the option to voluntarily report changes on an ongoing basis.
(i) Lead Agencies are required to act on this information provided by the family if it would reduce the family's co-payment or increase the family's subsidy.
(ii) Lead Agencies are prohibited from acting on information that would reduce the family's subsidy unless the information provided indicates the family's income exceeds 85 percent of SMI for a family of the same size, taking into account irregular income fluctuations, or, at the option of the Lead Agency, the family has experienced a non-temporary change in the work, training, or educational status.
(f) Lead Agencies must take into consideration children's development and learning and promote continuity of care when authorizing child care services.
(g) Lead Agencies are not required to limit authorized child care services strictly based on the work, training, or educational schedule of the parent(s) or the number of hours the parent(s) spend in work, training, or educational activities.
(e)(1) For child care services, certificates under paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall permit parents to choose from a variety of child care categories, including:
(i) Center-based child care;
(ii) Family child care; and
(iii) In-home child care, with limitations, if any, imposed by the Lead Agency and described in its Plan at § 98.16(i)(2). Under each of the above categories, care by a sectarian provider may not be limited or excluded.
(f) With respect to State and local regulatory requirements under § 98.40, health and safety requirements under § 98.41, and payment rates under § 98.45, CCDF funds will not be available to a Lead Agency if State or local rules, procedures or other requirements promulgated for purposes of the CCDF significantly restrict parental choice by:
(2) Having the effect of limiting parental access to or choice from among such categories of care or types of providers, as defined in § 98.2, with the exception of in-home care; or
(g) As long as provisions at paragraph (f) of this section are met, parental choice provisions shall not be construed as prohibiting a Lead Agency from establishing policies that require providers of child care services for which assistance is provided under this part to meet higher standards of quality, such as those identified in a quality improvement system or other transparent system of quality indicators.
(h) Parental choice provisions shall not be construed as prohibiting a Lead Agency from providing parents with information and incentives that encourage the selection of high quality child care.
The Lead Agency shall have in effect procedures to ensure that providers of child care services for which assistance is provided afford parents unlimited access to their children, and to the providers caring for their children, during normal hours of provider operation and whenever the children are in the care of the provider. The Lead Agency shall provide a detailed description in the Plan of such procedures.
The State shall:
(a) Establish or designate a hotline or similar reporting process for parents to submit complaints about child care providers;
(b) Maintain a record of substantiated parent complains;
(c) Make information regarding such parental complaints available to the public on request; and
(d) The Lead Agency shall provide a detailed description in the Plan of how such record is maintained and is made available.
The Lead Agency shall:
(a) Certify that it will collect and disseminate consumer education information to parents of eligible children, the general public, and providers through a consumer-friendly and easily accessible Web site that ensures the widest possible access to
(1) Lead Agency processes, including:
(i) The process for licensing child care providers pursuant to § 98.40;
(ii) The process for conducting monitoring and inspections of child care providers pursuant to § 98.42:
(iii) Policies and procedures related to criminal background checks for child care providers pursuant to § 98.43; and
(iv) The offenses that prevent individuals from serving as child care providers.
(2) Provider-specific information for all eligible and licensed child care providers (other than an individual who is related to all children for whom child care services are provided), including:
(i) A localized list of child care providers, differentiating between licensed and license-exempt providers, searchable by zip code;
(ii) The quality of a provider as determined by the Lead Agency through a quality rating and improvement system or other transparent system of quality indicators, if such information is available for the provider;
(iii) Results of monitoring and inspection reports for child care providers, including those required at § 98.42 and those due to major substantiated complaints about failure to comply with provisions at § 98.41 and Lead Agency child care policies. Lead Agencies shall post in a timely manner full monitoring and inspection reports, either in plain language or with a plain language summary, for parents and child care providers to understand. Such results shall include:
(A) Information on the date of such inspection;
(B) Information on corrective action taken by the State and child care provider, where applicable; and
(C) A minimum of 5 years of results, where available.
(iv) The number of serious injuries and deaths of children that occurred while in the care of the provider.
(3) Aggregate number of deaths, serious injuries, and instances of substantiated child abuse that occurred in child care settings each year, for eligible providers.
(4) Referrals to local child care resource and referral organizations.
(5) Directions on how parents can contact the Lead Agency or its designee and other programs to help them understand information included on the Web site.
(b) Certify that it will collect and disseminate, through resource and referral organizations or other means as determined by the State, including, but not limited to, through the Web site at § 98.33(a), to parents of eligible children and the general public, and where applicable providers, information about:
(1) The availability of the full diversity of child care services to promote informed parental choice, including information about:
(i) the availability of child care services under this part and other programs for which families may be eligible, as well as the availability of financial assistance to obtain child care services;
(ii) Other programs for which families that receive assistance under this part may be eligible, including:
(A) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (42 U.S.C. 601
(B) Head Start and Early Head Start (42 U.S.C. 9831
(C) Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) (42 U.S.C. 8621
(D) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (7 U.S.C. 2011
(E) Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (42 U.S.C. 1786);
(F) Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (42 U.S.C. 1766);
(G) Medicaid and the State children's health insurance programs (42 U.S.C. 1396
(iii) Programs carried out under section 619 and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431
(iv) Research and best practices concerning children's development, and meaningful parent and family engagement, and physical health and development, particularly healthy eating and physical activity; and
(v) State policies regarding social-emotional behavioral health of children which may include positive behavioral health intervention and support models for birth to school-age or age- appropriate, and policies on suspension and expulsion of children birth to age five in child care and other early childhood programs, as described in the Plan pursuant to § 98.16(ee), receiving assistance under this part.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Provide information on developmental screenings to parents as part of the intake process for families receiving assistance under this part, and to providers through training and education, including:
(1) Information on existing resources and services the State can make available in conducting developmental screenings and providing referrals to services when appropriate for children who receive assistance under this part, including the coordinated use of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program (42 U.S.C. 1396
(2) A description of how a family or eligible child care provider may utilize the resources and services described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section to obtain developmental screenings for children who receive assistance under this part who may be at risk for cognitive or other developmental delays, which may include social, emotional, physical, or linguistic delays.
(d) For families that receive assistance under this part, provide specific information about the child care provider selected by the parent, including health and safety requirements met by the provider pursuant to § 98.41, any licensing or regulatory requirements met by the provider, date the provider was last inspected, any history of violations of these requirements, and any voluntary quality standards met by the provider. Information must also describe how CCDF subsidies are designed to promote equal access in accordance with § 98.45, how to submit a complaint through the hotline at § 98.32(a), and how to contact local resource and referral agencies or other community-based supports that assist parents in finding and enrolling in quality child care.
(e) Inform parents who receive TANF benefits about the requirement at section 407(e)(2) of the Social Security Act that the TANF agency make an exception to the individual penalties associated with the work requirement for any single custodial parent who has a demonstrated inability to obtain needed child care for a child under six years of age. The information may be provided directly by the Lead Agency, or, pursuant to § 98.11, other entities, and shall include:
(1) The procedures the TANF agency uses to determine if the parent has a demonstrated inability to obtain needed child care;
(2) The criteria or definitions applied by the TANF agency to determine whether the parent has a demonstrated inability to obtain needed child care, including:
(i) “Appropriate child care”;
(ii) “Reasonable distance”;
(iii) “Unsuitability of informal child care”;
(iv) “Affordable child care arrangements”;
(3) The clarification that assistance received during the time an eligible
(f) Include in the triennial Plan the definitions or criteria the TANF agency uses in implementing the exception to the work requirement specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(a) * * *
(2) Describe in the Plan exemption(s) to licensing requirements, if any, for child care services for which assistance is provided, and a demonstration for how such exemption(s) do not endanger the health, safety, or development of children who receive services from such providers. Lead Agencies must provide the required description and demonstration for any exemptions based on:
(i) Provider category, type, or setting;
(ii) Length of day;
(iii) Providers not subject to licensing because the number of children served falls below a State-defined threshold; and
(iv) Any other exemption to licensing requirements; and
(3) Provide a detailed description in the Plan of the requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and of how they are effectively enforced.
(a) Each Lead Agency shall certify that there are in effect, within the State (or other area served by the Lead Agency), under State, local or tribal law, requirements (appropriate to provider setting and age of children served) that are designed, implemented, and enforced to protect the health and safety of children. Such requirements must be applicable to child care providers of services, for which assistance is provided under this part. Such requirements, which are subject to monitoring pursuant to § 98.42, shall:
(1) Include health and safety topics consisting of:
(i) The prevention and control of infectious diseases (including immunizations); with respect to immunizations, the following provisions apply:
(A) As part of their health and safety provisions in this area, Lead Agencies shall assure that children receiving services under the CCDF are age-appropriately immunized. Those health and safety provisions shall incorporate (by reference or otherwise) the latest recommendation for childhood immunizations of the respective State, territorial, or tribal public health agency.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, Lead Agencies may exempt:
(
(
(
(
(C) Lead Agencies shall establish a grace period that allows children experiencing homelessness and children in foster care to receive services under this part while providing their families (including foster families) a reasonable time to take any necessary action to comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements.
(
(
(
(ii) Prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and use of safe sleeping practices;
(iii) Administration of medication, consistent with standards for parental consent;
(iv) Prevention and response to emergencies due to food and allergic reactions;
(v) Building and physical premises safety, including identification of and protection from hazards, bodies of water, and vehicular traffic;
(vi) Prevention of shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma;
(vii) Emergency preparedness and response planning for emergencies resulting from a natural disaster, or a man-caused event (such as violence at a child care facility), within the meaning of those terms under section 602(a)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195a(a)(1)) that shall include procedures for evacuation, relocation, shelter-in-place and lock down, staff and volunteer emergency preparedness training and practice drills, communication and reunification with families, continuity of operations, and accommodation of infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, and children with chronic medical conditions;
(viii) Handling and storage of hazardous materials and the appropriate disposal of biocontaminants;
(ix) Appropriate precautions in transporting children, if applicable;
(x) First aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
(xi) Recognition and reporting of child abuse and neglect, in accordance with the requirement in paragraph (e) of this section; and
(xii) May include requirements relating to:
(A) Nutrition (including age-appropriate feeding);
(B) Access to physical activity;
(C) Caring for children with special needs; or
(D) Any other subject area determined by the Lead Agency to be necessary to promote child development or to protect children's health and safety.
(2) Include minimum health and safety training on the topics above, as described in § 98.44.
(b) Lead Agencies may not set health and safety standards and requirements other than those required in paragraph (a) of this section that are inconsistent with the parental choice safeguards in § 98.30(f).
(c) The requirements in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to all providers of child care services for which assistance is provided under this part, within the area served by the Lead Agency, except the relatives specified at § 98.42(c).
(d) Lead Agencies shall describe in the Plan standards for child care services for which assistance is provided under this part, appropriate to promoting the adult and child relationship in the type of child care setting involved, to provide for the safety and developmental needs of the children served, that address:
(1) Group size limits for specific age populations;
(2) The appropriate ratio between the number of children and the number of caregivers, in terms of age of children in child care; and
(3) Required qualifications for caregivers in child care settings as described at § 98.44(a)(4).
(e) Lead Agencies shall certify that caregivers, teachers, and directors of child care providers within the State or service area will comply with the State's, Territory's, or Tribe's child abuse reporting requirements as required by section 106(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Child Abuse and Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(i)) or other child abuse reporting procedures and laws in the service area.
(a) Each Lead Agency shall certify in the Plan that procedures are in effect to ensure that child care providers of services for which assistance is made available in accordance with this part, within the area served by the Lead Agency, comply with all applicable State, local, or tribal health and safety requirements, including those described in § 98.41.
(b) Each Lead Agency shall certify in the Plan it has monitoring policies and practices applicable to all child care providers and facilities eligible to deliver services for which assistance is provided under this part. The Lead Agency shall:
(1) Ensure individuals who are hired as licensing inspectors are qualified to inspect those child care providers and facilities and have received training in related health and safety requirements appropriate to provider setting and age of children served. Training shall include, but is not limited to, those requirements described in § 98.41, and all aspects of the State, Territory, or Tribe's licensure requirements;
(2) Require inspections of child care providers and facilities, performed by licensing inspectors (or qualified inspectors designated by the Lead Agency), as specified below:
(i) For licensed child care providers and facilities:
(A) Not less than one pre-licensure inspection for compliance with health, safety, and fire standards, and
(B) Not less than annually an unannounced inspection for compliance with all child care licensing standards, which shall include an inspection for compliance with health and safety, (including, but not limited to, those requirements described in § 98.41) and fire standards (inspectors may inspect for compliance with all three standards at the same time); and
(ii) For license-exempt child care providers and facilities, an annual inspection for compliance with health and safety (including, but not limited to, those requirements described in § 98.41), and fire standards;
(iii) Coordinate, to the extent practicable, monitoring efforts with other Federal, State, and local agencies that conduct similar inspections.
(iv) The Lead Agency may, at its option:
(A) Use differential monitoring or a risk-based approach to design annual inspections, provided that the contents covered during each monitoring visit is representative of the full complement of health and safety requirements;
(B) Develop alternate monitoring requirements for care provided in the child's home that are appropriate to the setting; and
(3) Ensure the ratio of licensing inspectors to such child care providers and facilities is maintained at a level sufficient to enable the State, Territory, or Tribe to conduct effective inspections on a timely basis in accordance with the applicable Federal, State, Territory, Tribal, and local law;
(4) Require child care providers to report to a designated State, Territorial, or Tribal entity any serious injuries or deaths of children occurring in child care.
(c) For the purposes of this section and § 98.41, Lead Agencies may exclude grandparents, great grandparents, siblings (if such providers live in a separate residence), aunts, or uncles, from the term “child care providers.” If the Lead Agency chooses to exclude these providers, the Lead Agency shall provide a description and justification in the CCDF Plan, pursuant to § 98.16(l), of requirements, if any, that apply to these providers.
§§ 98.43 through 98.47 [Redesignated as §§ 98.45 through 98.49]
(a)(1) States, Territories, and Tribes, through coordination of the Lead agency with other State, territorial, and tribal agencies, shall have in effect:
(i) Requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct criminal background checks for child care staff members (including prospective child care staff members) of all licensed, regulated, or registered child care providers and all child care providers eligible to deliver services for which assistance is provided under this part as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(ii) Licensing, regulation, and registration requirements, as applicable, that prohibit the employment of child care staff members as described in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(iii) Requirements, policies, and procedures in place to respond as expeditiously as possible to other States', Territories', and Tribes' requests for background check results in order to accommodate the 45 day timeframe required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(2) In this section:
(i) Child care provider means a center-based child care provider, a family child care provider, or another provider of child care services for compensation and on a regular basis that:
(A) Is not an individual who is related to all children for whom child care services are provided; and
(B) Is licensed, regulated, or registered under State law or eligible to receive assistance provided under this subchapter; and
(ii) Child care staff member means an individual age 18 and older (other than an individual who is related to all children for whom child care services are provided):
(A) Who is employed by a child care provider for compensation, including contract employees or self-employed individuals;
(B) Whose activities involve the care or supervision of children for a child care provider or unsupervised access to children who are cared for or supervised by a child care provider; or
(C) Any individual residing in a family child care home who is age 18 and older.
(b) A criminal background check for a child care staff member under paragraph (a) of this section shall include:
(1) A Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using Next Generation Identification;
(2) A search of the National Crime Information Center's National Sex Offender Registry; and
(3) A search of the following registries, repositories, or databases in the State where the child care staff member resides and each State where such staff member resided during the preceding five years:
(i) State criminal registry or repository using fingerprints;
(ii) State sex offender registry or repository; and
(iii) State-based child abuse and neglect registry and database.
(c)(1) A child care staff member shall be ineligible for employment by child care providers of services for which assistance is made available in accordance with this part, if such individual:
(i) Refuses to consent to the criminal background check described in paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Knowingly makes a materially false statement in connection with such criminal background check;
(iii) Is registered, or is required to be registered, on a State sex offender registry or repository or the National Sex Offender Registry; or
(iv) Has been convicted of a felony consisting of:
(A) Murder, as described in section 1111 of title 18, United States Code;
(B) Child abuse or neglect;
(C) A crime against children, including child pornography;
(D) Spousal abuse;
(E) A crime involving rape or sexual assault;
(F) Kidnapping;
(G) Arson;
(H) Physical assault or battery; or
(I) Subject to paragraph (e)(4) of this section, a drug-related offense committed during the preceding 5 years; or
(v) Has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor committed as an adult against a child, including the following crimes: child abuse, child endangerment, sexual assault, or of a misdemeanor involving child pornography.
(2) A child care provider described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall be ineligible for assistance provided in accordance with this subchapter if the provider employs a staff member who is ineligible for employment under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(d)(1) A child care provider covered by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall submit a request, to the appropriate State, Territorial, or Tribal agency, defined clearly on the State or Territory Web site described in paragraph (g) of this section, for a criminal background check described in paragraph (b) of this section, for each child care staff member (including prospective child care staff members) of the provider.
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the provider shall submit such a request:
(i) Prior to the date an individual becomes a child care staff member of the provider; and
(ii) Not less than once during each 5-year period for any existing staff member.
(3) A child care provider shall not be required to submit a request under paragraph (d)(2) of this section for a child care staff member if:
(i) The staff member received a background check described in paragraph (b) of this section:
(A) Within 5 years before the latest date on which such a submission may be made; and
(B) While employed by or seeking employment by another child care provider within the State;
(ii) The State provided to the first provider a qualifying background check result, consistent with this subchapter, for the staff member; and
(iii) The staff member is employed by a child care provider within the State, or has been separated from employment from a child care provider within the State for a period of not more than 180 consecutive days.
(4) A prospective staff member may begin work for a child care provider described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section after the provider has submitted such a request if the staff member is supervised at all times by an individual who received a qualifying result on a background check described in paragraph (b) of this section within 5 years of the request.
(e)(1)
(2) States, Territories, and Tribes shall ensure the privacy of background check results by:
(i) Providing the results of the criminal background check to the provider in a statement that indicates whether a child care staff member (including a prospective child care staff member) is eligible or ineligible for employment described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, without revealing any disqualifying crime or other related information regarding the individual.
(ii) If the child care staff member is ineligible for such employment due to the background check, the State, Territory, or Tribe will, when providing the results of the background check, include information related to each disqualifying crime, in a report to the staff member or prospective staff member.
(iii) No State, Territory, or Tribe shall publicly release or share the results of individual background checks, except States and Tribes may release aggregated data by crime as listed under paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section from background check results, as long as such data is not personally identifiable information.
(3) States, Territories, and Tribes shall provide for a process by which a child care staff member (including a prospective child care staff member) may appeal the results of a criminal background check conducted under this section to challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in such member's criminal background report. The State, Territory, and Tribe shall ensure that:
(i) Each child care staff member is given notice of the opportunity to appeal;
(ii) A child care staff member will receive instructions about how to complete the appeals process if the child care staff member wishes to challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in such member's criminal background report; and
(iii) The appeals process is completed in a timely manner for each child care staff member.
(4) States, Territories, and Tribes may allow for a review process through which the State, Territory, or Tribe may determine that a child care staff member (including a prospective child care staff member) disqualified for a crime specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(I) of this section is eligible for employment described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, notwithstanding paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The review process shall be consistent with title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private right of action if a provider has acted in accordance with this section.
(f) Fees that a State, Territory, or Tribe may charge for the costs of processing applications and administering a criminal background check as required by this section shall not exceed the actual costs for the processing and administration.
(g) The State or Territory must ensure that its policies and procedures under § 98.43, including the process by which a child care provider or other State may submit a background check request, are published in the Web site of the State or Territory as described in § 98.33(a) and the Web site of local lead agencies.
(h)(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a State, Territory, or Tribe from disqualifying individuals as child care staff members based on their conviction for crimes not specifically listed in this section that bear upon the fitness of an individual to provide care for and have responsibility for the safety and well-being of children.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the
(a) The Lead Agency must describe in the Plan the State or Territory framework for training, professional development, and postsecondary education for caregivers, teachers, and directors that:
(1) Is developed in consultation with the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (designated or established pursuant to section 642B(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)(1)(A)(i))) or similar coordinating body;
(2) May engage training providers in aligning training opportunities with the State's framework;
(3) To the extent practicable, addresses professional standards and competencies, career pathways, advisory structure, articulation, and workforce information and financing;
(4) Establishes qualifications in accordance with § 98.41(d)(3) designed to enable child care providers that provide services for which assistance is provided in accordance with this part to promote the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children and improve the knowledge and skills of caregivers, teachers and directors in working with children and their families;
(5) Is conducted on an ongoing basis, providing a progression of professional development (which may include encouraging the pursuit of postsecondary education);
(6) Reflects current research and best practices relating to the skills necessary for caregivers, teachers, and directors to meet the developmental needs of participating children and engage families; and
(7) Improves the quality, diversity, stability, and retention (including financial incentives) of caregivers, teachers, and directors.
(b) The Lead Agency must describe in the Plan its established requirements for pre-service or orientation (
(1) Accessible pre-service or orientation, training in health and safety standards, addressing each of the requirements relating to matters described in § 98.41(a)(1)(i) through (xi) and, at the Lead Agency option, in § 98.41(a)(1)(xii), and child development, including the major domains (cognitive, social, emotional, physical development and approaches to learning) appropriate to the age of children served;
(2) Ongoing, accessible professional development, aligned to a progression of professional development, including the minimum annual requirement for hours of training and professional development for eligible caregivers, teachers and directors that:
(i) Maintains and updates health and safety training standards described in Sec. 98.41(a)(1)(i) through (xi), and at the Lead Agency option, in § 98.41(a)(1)(xii);
(ii) Incorporates knowledge and application of the State's early learning and developmental guidelines for children birth to kindergarten (where applicable);
(iii) Incorporates social-emotional behavior intervention models for children birth through school-age, which may include positive behavior intervention and support models including preventing and reducing expulsions and suspensions of preschool-aged and school-aged children;
(iv) To the extent practicable, are appropriate for a population of children that includes:
(A) Different age groups;
(B) English learners;
(C) Children with developmental delays and disabilities; and
(D) Native Americans, including Indians, as the term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b) (including Alaska Natives within the meaning of that term), and Native Hawaiians (as defined in section 7207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7517));
(v) To the extent practicable, awards continuing education units or is credit-bearing; and
(vi) Shall be accessible to caregivers, teachers, and directors supported through Indian tribes or tribal organizations that receive assistance under this subchapter.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) The Lead Agency shall provide in the Plan a summary of the data and facts relied on to determine that its payment rates ensure equal access. At a minimum, the summary shall include facts showing:
(1) How a choice of the full range of providers is made available;
(2) How payment rates are adequate and have been established based on the most recent market rate survey or alternative methodology conducted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) How base payment rates support health, safety, and quality in accordance with paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this section;
(4) How payment rates provide parental choice for families receiving CCDF subsidies to access care that is of comparable quality to care that is available to families with incomes above 85 percent of State Median Income;
(5) How the Lead Agency took the cost of higher quality into account in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section;
(6) How copayments based on a sliding fee scale are affordable, as stipulated at paragraph (k) of this section;
(7) How the Lead Agency's payment practices support equal access to a range of providers by providing stability of funding and encouraging more child care providers to serve children receiving CCDF subsidies, in accordance with paragraph (m) of this section;
(8) How and on what factors the Lead Agency differentiates payment rates; and
(9) Any additional facts the Lead Agency considered in determining that its payment rates ensure equal access.
(c) The Lead Agency shall demonstrate in the Plan that it has developed and conducted, not earlier than two years before the date of the submission of the Plan, either:
(1) A statistically valid and reliable survey of the market rates for child care services (that also includes information on the extent to which child care providers are participating in the CCDF subsidy program and any barriers to participation, including barriers related to payment rates and practices); or
(2) An alternative methodology, such as a cost estimation model, that has been:
(i) Proposed by the Lead Agency in accordance with uniform procedures and timeframes established by ACF; and
(ii) Approved in advance by ACF.
(d) The market rate survey or alternative methodology must reflect variations by geographic location, category of provider, and age of child.
(e) Prior to conducting the market rate survey or alternative methodology, the Lead Agency must consult with:
(1) The State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (designated or established pursuant to section 642B(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)(1)(A)(i)) or similar coordinating body, local child care program administrators, local child care resource and referral agencies, and other appropriate entities; and
(2) Organizations representing child care caregivers, teachers, and directors.
(f) After conducting the market rate survey or alternative methodology, the Lead Agency must:
(1) Prepare a detailed report containing the results, and make the report widely available, including by posting it on the Internet, not later than 30 days after the completion of the report.
(i) The report must indicate the estimated price or cost of care necessary to support child care providers' implementation of the health, safety, and quality requirements at §§ 98.41 through 98.44, including any relevant variation by geographic location, category of provider, or age of child.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Set payment rates for CCDF assistance:
(i) In accordance with the results of the most recent market rate survey or alternative methodology conducted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;
(ii) With base payment rates established at least at a level sufficient to support implementation of health, safety and quality requirements in accordance with paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section;
(iii) That provides parental choice to families receiving CCDF subsidies to access care that is of comparable quality to care that is available to families with incomes above 85 percent of State Median Income;
(iv) Taking into consideration the cost of providing higher quality child care services; and
(v) Without, to the extent practicable, reducing the number of families receiving CCDF assistance.
(g) A Lead Agency may not establish different payment rates based on a family's eligibility status, such as TANF status.
(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private right of action if the Lead Agency acted in accordance with the Act and this part.
(j) Nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent a Lead Agency from differentiating payment rates on the basis of such factors as:
(1) Geographic location of child care providers (such as location in an urban or rural area);
(2) Age or particular needs of children (such as the needs of children with disabilities, children served by child protective services, and children experiencing homelessness);
(3) Whether child care providers provide services during the weekend or other non-traditional hours; or
(4) The Lead Agency's determination that such differential payment rates may enable a parent to choose high-quality child care that best fits the parents' needs.
(k) Lead Agencies shall establish, and periodically revise, by rule, a sliding fee scale(s) for families that receive CCDF child care services that:
(1) Helps families afford child care and enables choice of a range of child care options;
(2) Is based on income and the size of the family and may be based on other factors as appropriate, but may not be based on the cost of care or amount of subsidy payment;
(3) Provides for affordable family co-payments that are not a barrier to families receiving assistance under this part;
(4) Allows for co-payments to be waived for families whose incomes are at or below the poverty level for a family of the same size, that have children who receive or need to receive protective services, or that meet other criteria established by the Lead Agency.
(l) Lead Agencies must have a policy that prohibits child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under the CCDF from charging parents additional mandatory fees above the family co-payment determined in accordance with the sliding fee scale.
(m) The Lead Agency shall demonstrate in the Plan that it has established payment practices for CCDF child care providers that:
(1) Ensure timeliness of payment by either:
(i) Paying prospectively prior to the delivery of services; or
(ii) Paying within no more than 21 days of the receipt of invoice for services.
(2) To the extent practicable, support the fixed costs of providing child care services by delinking provider payments from a child's occasional absences. A Lead Agency must describe its approach in the State Plan, including justification for an alternative approach that is not one of the following:
(i) Paying based on a child's enrollment rather than attendance;
(ii) Providing full payment if a child attends at least 85 percent of the authorized time; or
(iii) Providing full payment if a child is absent for five or fewer days in a month.
(3) Reflect generally accepted payment practices of child care providers that serve children who do not receive CCDF subsidies, which must include (unless the Lead Agency provides evidence in the Plan that such practices are not generally-accepted in the State or service area):
(i) Paying on a part-time or full-time basis (rather than paying for hours of service or smaller increments of time); and
(ii) Paying for mandatory fees that the provider charges to private-paying parents, such as fees for registration:
(4) Ensure child care providers receive payment for any services in accordance with a payment agreement or authorization for services;
(5) Ensure child care providers receive prompt notice of changes to a family's eligibility status that may impact payment;
(6) Include timely appeal and resolution processes for any payment inaccuracies and disputes.
(a) Lead Agencies shall give priority for services provided under § 98.50(a) to:
(1) Children of families with very low family income (considering family size);
(2) Children with special needs, which may include any vulnerable populations as defined by the Lead Agency; and
(3) Children experiencing homelessness.
(b) Lead Agencies shall prioritize increasing access to high quality child care and development services for children of families in areas that have significant concentrations of poverty and unemployment and that do not have a sufficient number of such programs.
(a) Direct child care services shall be provided:
(1) To eligible children, as described in § 98.20;
(2) Using a sliding fee scale, as described in § 98.45(k);
(3) Using funding methods provided for in § 98.30 which must include some use of grants or contracts for the provision of direct services, with the extent of such services determined by the Lead Agency after consideration of shortages in the supply of high quality care described in the Plan pursuant to § 98.16(i)(1) and other factors as determined by the Lead Agency; and
(4) Based on the priorities in § 98.46.
(b) Of the aggregate amount of funds expended (
(1) No less than seven percent in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, eight percent in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, and nine percent in fiscal year 2020 and each succeeding fiscal year shall be used for activities designed to improve the quality of child care services and increase parental options for, and access to, high-quality child care as described at § 98.53; and
(2) No less than three percent in fiscal year 2017 and each succeeding fiscal year shall be used to carry out activities at § 98.53(a)(4) as such activities relate to the quality of care for infants and toddlers.
(3) Nothing in this section shall preclude the Lead Agency from reserving a larger percentage of funds to carry out activities described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(c) Funds expended from each fiscal year's allotment on quality activities pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Must be in alignment with an assessment of the Lead Agency's need to carry out such services and care as required at § 98.53(a);
(2) Must include measurable indicators of progress in accordance with § 98.53(f); and
(3) May be provided directly by the Lead Agency or through grants or contracts with local child care resource and referral organizations or other appropriate entities.
(d) Of the aggregate amount of funds expended (
(e) Not less than 70 percent of the Mandatory and Federal and State share of Matching Funds shall be used to meet the child care needs of families who:
(1) Are receiving assistance under a State program under Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act;
(2) Are attempting through work activities to transition off such assistance program; and
(3) Are at risk of becoming dependent on such assistance program.
(f) From Discretionary amounts provided for a fiscal year, the Lead Agency shall:
(1) Reserve the minimum amount required under paragraph (b) of this section for quality activities, and the funds for administrative costs described at paragraph (d) of this section; and
(2) From the remainder, use not less than 70 percent to fund direct services (provided by the Lead Agency).
(g) Of the funds remaining after applying the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section the Lead Agency shall spend a substantial portion funds to provide direct child care services to low-income families who are working or attending training or education.
(h) Pursuant to § 98.16(i)(4), the Plan shall specify how the State will meet the child care needs of families described in paragraph (e) of this section.
§§ 98.51 through 98.55 [Redesignated as §§ 98.53 through 98.57]
Lead Agencies shall expend funds on activities that improve access to quality child care services for children experiencing homelessness, including:
(a) The use of procedures to permit enrollment (after an initial eligibility determination) of children experiencing homelessness while required documentation is obtained;
(1) If, after full documentation is provided, a family experiencing homelessness is found ineligible:
(i) The Lead Agency shall pay any amount owed to a child care provider for services provided as a result of the initial eligibility determination.
(ii) Any CCDF payment made prior to the final eligibility determination shall not be considered an error or improper payment under subpart K of this part; and
(2) [Reserved]
(b) Training and technical assistance for providers and appropriate Lead Agency (or designated entity) staff on identifying and serving children experiencing homelessness and their families; and
(c) Specific outreach to families experiencing homelessness.
(a) A Lead Agency may expend funds to establish or support a system of local or regional child care resource and referral organizations that is coordinated, to the extent determined appropriate by the Lead Agency, by a statewide public or private nonprofit, community-based or regionally based, lead child care resource and referral organization.
(b) If a Lead Agency uses funds as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the local or regional child care resource and referral organizations supported shall, at the direction of the Lead Agency:
(1) Provide parents in the State with consumer education information referred to in § 98.33 (except as otherwise provided in that paragraph), concerning the full range of child care options (including faith-based and community-based child care providers), analyzed by provider, including child care provided during nontraditional hours and through emergency child care centers, in their political subdivisions or regions;
(2) To the extent practicable, work directly with families who receive assistance under this subchapter to offer the families support and assistance, using information described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, to make an informed decision about which child care providers they will use, in an effort to ensure that the families are enrolling their children in the most appropriate child care setting to suit their needs and one that is of high quality (as determined by the Lead Agency);
(3) Collect data and provide information on the coordination of services and supports, including services under section 619 and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431,
(4) Collect data and provide information on the supply of and demand for child care services in political subdivisions or regions within the State and submit such information to the State;
(5) Work to establish partnerships with public agencies and private entities, including faith-based and community-based child care providers, to increase the supply and quality of child care services in the State; and
(6) As appropriate, coordinate their activities with the activities of the State Lead Agency and local agencies that administer funds made available in accordance with this part.
(a) The Lead Agency must expend funds from each fiscal year's allotment on quality activities pursuant to § 98.50(b) in accordance with an assessment of need by the Lead Agency. Such funds must be used to carry out at least one of the following quality activities to increase the number of low-income children in high-quality child care:
(1) Supporting the training, professional development, and postsecondary education of the child care workforce as part of a progression of professional development through activities such as those included at § 98.44, in addition to:
(i) Offering training, professional development, and postsecondary education opportunities for child care caregivers, teachers and directors that:
(A) Relate to the use of scientifically-based, developmentally-appropriate, culturally-appropriate, and age-appropriate strategies to promote the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children, including those related to nutrition and physical activity; and
(B) Offer specialized training, professional development, and postsecondary education for caregivers, teachers and directors caring for those populations prioritized at § 98.44(b)(2)(iv), and children with disabilities;
(ii) Incorporating the effective use of data to guide program improvement and improve opportunities for caregivers, teachers and directors to advance on their progression of training, professional development, and postsecondary education;
(iii) Including effective behavior management strategies and training, including positive behavior interventions and support models for birth to school-age or age-appropriate, that promote positive social and emotional development and reduce challenging behaviors, including reducing suspensions and expulsions of children under age five for such behaviors;
(iv) Providing training and outreach on engaging parents and families in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways to expand their knowledge, skills, and capacity to become meaningful partners in supporting their children's positive development;
(v) Providing training corresponding to the nutritional and physical activity needs of children to promote healthy development;
(vi) Providing training or professional development for caregivers, teachers and directors regarding the early neurological development of children; and
(vii) Connecting child care caregivers, teachers, and directors with available Federal and State financial aid, or other resources, that would assist these individuals in pursuing relevant postsecondary education, such as programs providing scholarships and compensation improvements for education attainment and retention.
(2) Improving upon the development or implementation of the early learning and development guidelines at § 98.15(a)(9) by providing technical assistance to eligible child care providers in order to enhance the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development and overall well-being of participating children.
(3) Developing, implementing, or enhancing a tiered quality rating and improvement system for child care providers and services to meet consumer education requirements at § 98.33, which may:
(i) Support and assess the quality of child care providers in the State, Territory, or Tribe;
(ii) Build on licensing standards and other regulatory standards for such providers;
(iii) Be designed to improve the quality of different types of child care providers and services;
(iv) Describe the safety of child care facilities;
(v) Build the capacity of early childhood programs and communities to promote parents' and families' understanding of the early childhood system and the rating of the program in which the child is enrolled;
(vi) Provide, to the maximum extent practicable, financial incentives and other supports designed to expand the full diversity of child care options and help child care providers improve the quality of services; and
(vii) Accommodate a variety of distinctive approaches to early childhood education and care, including but not limited to, those practiced in faith-based settings, community-based settings, child-centered settings, or similar settings that offer a distinctive approach to early childhood development.
(4) Improving the supply and quality of child care programs and services for infants and toddlers through activities, which may include:
(i) Establishing or expanding high-quality community or neighborhood-based family and child development centers, which may serve as resources to child care providers in order to improve the quality of early childhood services provided to infants and toddlers from low-income families and to help eligible child care providers improve their capacity to offer high-quality, age-appropriate care to infants and toddlers from low-income families;
(ii) Establishing or expanding the operation of community or neighborhood-based family child care networks;
(iii) Promoting and expanding child care providers' ability to provide developmentally appropriate services for infants and toddlers through, but not limited to:
(A) Training and professional development for caregivers, teachers and directors, including coaching and technical assistance on this age group's unique needs from statewide networks of qualified infant-toddler specialists; and
(B) Improved coordination with early intervention specialists who provide services for infants and toddlers with disabilities under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431.
(iv) If applicable, developing infant and toddler components within the Lead Agency's quality rating and improvement system described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for child care providers for infants and toddlers, or the development of infant and toddler components in the child care licensing regulations or early learning and development guidelines;
(v) Improving the ability of parents to access transparent and easy to understand consumer information about high-quality infant and toddler care as described at § 98.33; and
(vi) Carrying out other activities determined by the Lead Agency to improve the quality of infant and toddler care provided, and for which there is evidence that the activities will lead to improved infant and toddler health and safety, infant and toddler cognitive and physical development, or infant and toddler well-being, including providing health and safety training (including training in safe sleep practices, first aid, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation for providers and caregivers.
(5) Establishing or expanding a statewide system of child care resource and referral services.
(6) Facilitating compliance with Lead Agency requirements for inspection, monitoring, training, and health and safety, and with licensing standards.
(7) Evaluating and assessing the quality and effectiveness of child care programs and services offered, including evaluating how such programs positively impact children.
(8) Supporting child care providers in the voluntary pursuit of accreditation by a national accrediting body with demonstrated, valid, and reliable program standards of high-quality.
(9) Supporting Lead Agency or local efforts to develop or adopt high-quality program standards relating to health, mental health, nutrition, physical activity, and physical development.
(10) Carrying out other activities, including implementing consumer education provisions at § 98.33, determined by the Lead Agency to improve the quality of child care services provided, and for which measurement of outcomes relating to improvement of provider preparedness, child safety, child well-being, or entry to kindergarten is possible.
(b) Pursuant to § 98.16(j), the Lead Agency shall describe in its Plan the activities it will fund under this section.
(c) Non-Federal expenditures required by § 98.55(c) (
(d) Activities to improve the quality of child care services are not restricted to activities affecting children meeting eligibility requirements under § 98.20 or to child care providers of services for which assistance is provided under this part.
(e) Unless expressly authorized by law, targeted funds for quality improvement and other set-asides that may be included in appropriations law may not be used towards meeting the quality expenditure minimum requirement at § 98.50(b).
(f) States shall annually prepare and submit reports, including a quality progress report and expenditure report, to the Secretary, which must be made publicly available and shall include:
(1) An assurance that the State was in compliance with requirements at § 98.50(b) in the preceding fiscal year and information about the amount of funds reserved for that purpose;
(2) A description of the activities carried out under this section to comply with § 98.50(b);
(3) The measures the State will use to evaluate its progress in improving the quality of child care programs and services in the State, and data on the extent to which the State had met these measures; and
(4) A report describing any changes to State regulations, enforcement mechanisms, or other State policies addressing health and safety based on an annual review and assessment of serious child injuries and any deaths occurring in child care programs serving children receiving assistance under this part, and in other regulated and unregulated child care centers and family child care homes, to the extent possible.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Not more than five percent of the aggregate funds expended by the Lead Agency from each fiscal year's allotment, including the amounts expended in the State pursuant to § 98.55(b), shall be expended for administrative activities. These activities may include but are not limited to:
(6) Indirect costs as determined by an indirect cost agreement or cost allocation plan pursuant to § 98.57.
(b) The following activities do not count towards the five percent limitation on administrative expenditures in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Establishment and maintenance of computerized child care information systems;
(2) Establishing and operating a certificate program;
(3) Eligibility determination and redetermination;
(4) Preparation/participation in judicial hearings;
(5) Child care placement;
(6) Recruitment, licensing, inspection of child care providers;
(7) Training for Lead Agency or sub-recipient staff on billing and claims processes associated with the subsidy program;
(8) Reviews and supervision of child care placements;
(9) Activities associated with payment rate setting;
(10) Resource and referral services; and
(11) Training for child care staff.
(d) Non-Federal expenditures required by § 98.55(c) (
(e) If a Lead Agency enters into agreements with sub-recipients for operation of the CCDF program, the amount of the contract or grant attributable to administrative activities as described in this section shall be counted towards the five percent limit.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Shall be certified both by the Lead Agency and by the donor (if funds are donated directly to the Lead Agency) or the Lead Agency and the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds pursuant to § 98.55(f) (if funds are donated directly to the designated entity) as available and representing funds eligible for Federal match; and
(f) Donated funds need not be transferred to or under the administrative control of the Lead Agency in order to qualify as an expenditure eligible to receive Federal match under this section. They may be given to the public or private entities designated by the State to implement the child care program in accordance with § 98.11 provided that such entities are identified and designated in the State Plan to receive donated funds in accordance with § 98.16(d)(2).
(g) * * *
(2) Family contributions to the cost of care as required by § 98.45(k).
(h) * * *
(2) May be eligible for Federal match if the State includes in its Plan, as provided in § 98.16(w), a description of the efforts it will undertake to ensure that pre-K programs meet the needs of working parents.
(b) * * * (1) * * * Improvements or upgrades to a facility which are not specified under the definitions of construction or major renovation at § 98.2 may be considered minor remodeling and are, therefore, not prohibited.
(d)
(e) The CCDF may not be used as the non-Federal share for other Federal grant programs, unless explicitly authorized by statute.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) Subject to the availability of appropriations, in accordance with relevant statutory provisions and the apportionment of funds from the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary:
(1) May withhold a portion of the CCDF funds made available for a fiscal year for the provision of technical assistance, for research, evaluation, and demonstration, and for a national toll-free hotline and Web site;
(d) * * *
(2)(i) Mandatory Funds for States requesting Matching Funds per § 98.55 shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and are available until expended.
(4) * * *
(ii) If there is no applicable State or local law, the regulation at 45 CFR 75.2, Expenditures and Obligations.
(6) In instances where the Lead Agency issues child care certificates, funds for child care services provided through a child care certificate will be considered obligated when a child care certificate is issued to a family in writing that indicates:
(7) In instances where third party agencies issue child care certificates, the obligation of funds occurs upon entering into agreement through a subgrant or contract with such agency, rather than when the third party issues certificates to a family.
(h) Repayment of loans made to child care providers as part of a quality improvement activity pursuant to § 98.53, may be made in cash or in services provided in-kind. Payment provided in-kind shall be based on fair market value. All loans shall be fully repaid.
(c) For Indian Tribes and tribal organizations, including any Alaskan Native Village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
(f) Lead Agencies shall expend any funds that may be set-aside for targeted activities pursuant to annual appropriations law as directed by the Secretary.
(b) For purposes of this section, the amounts available under section 418(a)(3) of the Social Security Act excludes the amounts reserved and allocated under § 98.60(b)(1) for technical assistance, research and evaluation, and the national toll-free hotline and Web site and under § 98.62(a) and (b) for the Mandatory Fund.
(c) Amounts under this section are available pursuant to the requirements at § 98.55(c).
(c)(1) Any portion of the Matching Fund granted to a State that is not obligated in the period for which the grant is made shall be redistributed. Funds, if any, will be redistributed on the request of, and only to, those other States that have met the requirements of § 98.55(c) in the period for which the grant was first made. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(1), the term “State” means the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Territorial and tribal grantees may not receive redistributed Matching Funds.
(a) Each Lead Agency shall have an audit conducted after the close of each program period in accordance with 45 CFR part 75, subpart F, and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996.
(g) Lead Agencies shall submit financial reports, in a manner specified by ACF, quarterly for each fiscal year until funds are expended.
(h) At a minimum, a State or territorial Lead Agency's quarterly report shall include the following information on expenditures under CCDF grant funds, including Discretionary (which includes realloted funding and any funds transferred from the TANF block grant), Mandatory, and Matching funds (which includes redistributed funding); and State Matching and Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funds:
(1) Child care administration;
(2) Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF;
(3) Direct services;
(4) Non-direct services, including:
(i) Establishment and maintenance of computerized child care information systems;
(ii) Certificate program cost/eligibility determination;
(iii) All other non-direct services; and
(5) Such other information as specified by the Secretary.
(i) Tribal Lead Agencies shall submit financial reports annually in a manner specified by ACF.
(a) Lead Agencies are required to describe in their Plan effective internal controls that are in place to ensure integrity and accountability in the CCDF program. These shall include:
(1) Processes to ensure sound fiscal management;
(2) Processes to identify areas of risk; and
(3) Regular evaluation of internal control activities.
(b) Lead Agencies are required to describe in their Plan the processes that are in place to:
(1) Identify fraud or other program violations, which may include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Record matching and database linkages;
(ii) Review of attendance and billing records;
(iii) Quality control or quality assurance reviews; and
(iv) Staff training on monitoring and audit processes.
(2) Investigate and recover fraudulent payments and to impose sanctions on clients or providers in response to fraud.
(c) Lead Agencies must describe in their Plan the procedures that are in place for documenting and verifying that children receiving assistance under this part meet eligibility criteria at the time of eligibility determination and redetermination. Because a child meeting eligibility requirements at the most recent eligibility determination or redetermination is considered eligible during the period between redeterminations as described in § 98.21(a)(1):
(1) The Lead Agency shall pay any amount owed to a child care provider for services provided for such a child during this period under a payment agreement or authorization for services; and
(2) Any CCDF payment made for such a child during this period shall not be considered an error or improper payment under subpart K of this part due to a change in the family's circumstances, as set forth at § 98.21(a).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) The total monthly family income and family size used for determining eligibility;
(2) Zip code of residence of the family and zip code of the location of the child care provider;
(13) Unique identifier of the head of the family unit receiving child care assistance, and of the child care provider;
(15) Whether the family is homeless;
(16) Whether the parent(s) are in the military service;
(17) Whether the child has a disability;
(18) Primary language spoken at home;
(19) Date of the child care provider's most recent health, safety and fire inspection meeting the requirements of § 98.42(b)(2);
(20) Indicator of the quality of the child care provider; and
(b) * * *
(5) The number of child fatalities by type of care; and
(c) A Tribal Lead Agency's annual report, as required in § 98.70(c), shall include such information as the Secretary shall require.
(a) An Indian Tribe applying for or receiving CCDF funds shall be subject to the requirements under this part as specified in this section based on the size of the awarded funds. The Secretary shall establish thresholds for Tribes' total CCDF allotments pursuant to §§ 98.61(c) and 98.62(b) to be divided into three categories:
(1) Large allocations;
(2) Medium allocations; and
(3) Small allocations.
(c) * * *
(1) The consortium adequately demonstrates that each participating Tribe authorizes the consortium to receive CCDF funds on behalf of each Tribe or tribal organization in the consortium;
(2) The consortium consists of Tribes that each meet the eligibility requirements for the CCDF program as defined in this part, or that would otherwise meet the eligibility requirements if the Tribe or tribal organization had at least 50 children under 13 years of age;
(b) Tribal Lead Agencies with large and medium allocations shall submit a CCDF Plan, as described at § 98.16, with the following additions and exceptions:
(1) The Plan shall include the basis for determining family eligibility.
(i) If the Tribe's median income is below a certain level established by the Secretary, then, at the Tribe's option, any Indian child in the Tribe's service area shall be considered eligible to receive CCDF funds, regardless of the family's income, work, or training status.
(ii) If the Tribe's median income is above the level established by the Secretary, then a tribal program must determine eligibility for services pursuant to § 98.20(a)(2). A tribal program, as specified in its Plan, may use either:
(A) 85 percent of the State median income for a family of the same size; or
(B) 85 percent of the median income for a family of the same size residing in the area served by the Tribal Lead Agency.
(5) The Plan shall include a description of the Tribe's payment rates, how they are established, and how they support quality including, where applicable, cultural and linguistic appropriateness.
(6) The Plan is not subject to the following requirements:
(i) A definition of very low income at § 98.16(g)(8);
(ii) A description at § 98.16(i)(4) of how the Lead Agency will meet the needs of certain families specified at § 98.50(e);
(iii) The description of the market rate survey or alternative methodology at § 98.16(r);
(iv) The licensing requirements applicable to child care services at § 98.15(b)(6); and
(v) The early learning and developmental guidelines requirement at § 98.15(a)(9).
(9) Plans for Tribal Lead Agencies with medium allocations are not subject to the following requirements unless the Tribe chooses to include such services, and, therefore, the associated requirements, in its program:
(i) The assurance at § 98.15(a)(2) regarding options for services;
(ii) A description of any limits established for the provision of in-home care at § 98.16(i)(2); or
(iii) A description of the child care certificate payment system(s) at § 98.16(q).
(c) Tribal Lead Agencies with small allocations shall submit an abbreviated CCDF Plan, as described by the Secretary.
(a) Tribal applicants shall coordinate the development of the Plan and the provision of services as required by §§ 98.12 and 98.14 and:
(1) To the maximum extent feasible, with the Lead Agency in the State or
(2) With other Federal, State, local, and tribal child care and childhood development programs.
(b) [Reserved]
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) With the exception of Alaska, California, and Oklahoma, programs and activities for the benefit of Indian children shall be carried out on or near an Indian reservation.
(c) * * *
(1) A brief description of the direct child care services funded by CCDF for each of their participating Tribes shall be provided by the consortium in their three-year CCDF Plan; and
(d)(1) Tribal Lead Agencies shall not be subject to:
(i) The requirement to have licensing applicable to child care services at § 98.40;
(ii) The requirement to produce a consumer education Web site at § 98.33(a). Tribal Lead Agencies still must collect and disseminate the provider-specific consumer education information described at § 98.33(a) through (e), but may do so using methods other than a Web site;
(iii) The requirement that Lead Agencies shall give priority for services to children of families with very low family income at § 98.46(a);
(iv) The market rate survey or alternative methodology described at § 98.45(b)(2) and the related requirements at § 98.45(c), (d), (e), and (f);
(v) The requirement to use some grants or contracts for the provision of direct services at § 98.50(a)(3);
(vi) The requirement for a training and professional development framework at § 98.44(a);
(vii) The requirements about Mandatory and Matching Funds at § 98.50(e);
(viii) The requirement to complete the quality progress report at § 98.53(f);
(ix) The requirement that Lead Agencies shall expend no more than five percent from each year's allotment on administrative costs at § 98.54(a); and
(x) The Matching fund requirements at §§ 98.55 and 98.63.
(2) Tribal Lead Agencies with large, medium, and small allocations shall be subject to the provision at § 98.42(b)(2) to require inspections of child care providers and facilities, unless a Tribal Lead Agency describes an alternative monitoring approach in its Plan and provides adequate justification for the approach.
(3) Tribal Lead Agencies with large, medium, and small allocations shall be subject to the requirement at § 98.43(a)(2)(ii)(C) to conduct comprehensive criminal background checks on other individuals residing in a family child care home, unless the Tribal Lead Agency describes an alternative background check approach for such individuals in its Plan and provides adequate justification for the approach.
(e) Tribal Lead Agencies with medium and small allocations shall not be subject to the requirement for certificates at § 98.30(a) and (d).
(f) Tribal Lead Agencies with small allocations must spend their CCDF funds in alignment with the goals and purposes described in § 98.1. These Tribes shall have flexibility in how they spend their CCDF funds and shall be subject to the following requirements:
(1) If providing direct services:
(i) The health and safety requirements described in § 98.41;
(ii) The monitoring requirements at §§ 98.42 and 98.83(d)(2); and
(iii) The background checks requirements described in §§ 98.43 and 98.83(d)(3);
(2) The requirements to spend funds on activities to improve the quality of child care described in §§ 98.50(b) and 98.53;
(3) The use of funds requirements at § 98.56 and cost allocation requirement at § 98.57;
(4) The financial management requirements at subpart G of this part that are applicable to Tribes;
(5) The reporting requirements at subpart H of this part that are applicable to Tribes;
(6) The 15 percent limitation on administrative activities at § 98.83(h);
(7) The monitoring, non-compliance, and complaint provisions at subpart J of this part; and
(8) Any other requirement established by the Secretary.
(g) The base amount of any tribal grant is not subject to the administrative cost limitation at paragraph (h) of this section or the quality expenditure requirement at § 98.53(a). The base amount may be expended for any costs consistent with the purposes and requirements of the CCDF.
(h) Not more than 15 percent of the aggregate CCDF funds expended by the Tribal Lead Agency from each fiscal year's (including amounts used for construction and renovation in accordance with § 98.84, but not including the base amount provided under paragraph (g) of this section) shall be expended for administrative activities. Amounts used for construction and major renovation in accordance with § 98.84 are not considered administrative costs.
(i)(1) CCDF funds are available for costs incurred by the Tribal Lead Agency only after the funds are made available by Congress for Federal obligation unless costs are incurred for planning activities related to the submission of an initial CCDF Plan.
(2) Federal obligation of funds for planning costs, pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this section is subject to the actual availability of the appropriation.
(b) * * *
(3) * * * The Secretary shall waive this requirement if:
(i) The Secretary determines that the decrease in the level of child care services provided by the Indian tribe or tribal organization is temporary; and
(ii) The Indian tribe or tribal organization submits to the Secretary a plan that demonstrates that after the date on which the construction or renovation is completed:
(A) The level of direct child care services will increase; or
(B) The quality of child care services will improve.
(d) * * *
(1) Federal share requirements and use of property requirements at 45 CFR75.318;
(2) Transfer and disposition of property requirements at 45 CFR 75.318(c);
(3) Title requirements at 45 CFR 75.318(a);
(4) Cost principles and allowable cost requirements at subpart E of this part;
(5) Program income requirements at 45 CFR 75.307;
(6) Procurement procedures at 45 CFR 75.326 through 75.335; and
(a) * * *
(1) The Secretary will disallow any improperly expended funds;
(b) * * *
(3)(i) A penalty of not more than five percent of the funds allotted under § 98.61 (
(ii) This penalty will be withheld no earlier than the first full Fiscal Year following the determination to apply the penalty;
(iii) This penalty will not be applied if the Lead Agency corrects its failure to comply and amends its CCDF Plan within six months of being notified of the failure; and
(iv) The Secretary may waive a penalty for one year in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as a natural disaster.
(4)(i) A penalty of not more than five percent of the funds allotted under § 98.61 (
(ii) This penalty will be withheld no earlier than the first full Fiscal Year following the determination to apply the penalty; and
(iii) This penalty will not be applied if the State, Territory, or Tribe corrects the failure before the penalty is to be applied or if it submits a plan for corrective action that is acceptable to the Secretary.
(d) * * *
(2) * * * Because a child meeting eligibility requirements at the most recent eligibility determination or redetermination is considered eligible between redeterminations as described in § 98.21(a)(1), any payment for such a child shall not be considered an error or improper payment due to a change in the family's circumstances, as set forth at § 98.21(a).
(e)
(a) * * *
(5) Estimated annual amount of improper payments (which is a projection of the results from the sample to the universe of cases statewide during the 12-month review period) calculated by multiplying the percentage of improper payments by the total dollar amount of child care payments that the State, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico paid during the 12-month review period;
(c) Any Lead Agency with an improper payment rate that exceeds a threshold established by the Secretary must submit to the Assistant Secretary for approval a comprehensive corrective action plan, as well as subsequent reports describing progress in implementing the plan.
(1) The corrective action plan must be submitted within 60 days of the deadline for submitting the Lead Agency's standard error rate report required by paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) The corrective action plan must include the following:
(i) Identification of a senior accountable official;
(ii) Milestones that clearly identify actions to be taken to reduce improper payments and the individual responsible for completing each action;
(iii) A timeline for completing each action within 1 year of the Assistant Secretary's approval of the plan, and for reducing the improper payment rate below the threshold established by the Secretary; and
(iv) Targets for future improper payment rates.
(3) Subsequent progress reports must be submitted as requested by the Assistant Secretary.
(4) Failure to carry out actions described in the approved corrective action plan will be grounds for a penalty or sanction under § 98.92.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of review.
In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
This CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in order to determine that species qualify as candidates, to assign a listing priority number (LPN) to each species, and to determine whether a species should be removed from candidate status. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms) for each candidate species.
This CNOR changes the LPN for two candidates and removes two species from candidate status. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current number of species that are candidates for listing is 60.
This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015.
Moreover, we request any additional status information that may be available for the candidate species identified in this CNOR.
We will accept information on any of the species in this Candidate Notice of Review at any time.
This notice is available on the Internet at
Chief, Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
We request additional status information that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. We also request information on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the ESA, as well as additional species that may require the ESA's protections; and (5) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage collaborative
We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was published on December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450). CNORs published since 1994 are available on our Web site,
On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priority-ranking system. As explained below, in using this system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either “high” or “moderate to low.” This criterion helps ensure that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with higher-magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species with lower-magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: (1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat(s).
As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is categorized as either “imminent” or “nonimminent,” and is based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at:
To the extent this revised notice differs from all previous animal, plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species or previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those candidate species that were petitioned for listing, this notice supercedes them.
Since publication of the previous CNOR on December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly species with higher priorities (
In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list species, and on proposed and final determinations for rules to list species under the ESA. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, with this CNOR, we change the LPN for two candidates and remove two species from candidate status. Combined with the other decisions published separately from this CNOR, a total of 60 species (18 plant and 42 animal species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 60 species, along with the 71 species currently proposed for listing (including 1 species proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance), are included in Table 1.
Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 55 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those
We have not identified any new candidate species through this notice but identified one species—the Sierra Nevada DPS of the red fox—as a candidate on October 8, 2015, as a result of a separate petition finding published in the
We reviewed the LPNs for all candidate species and are changing the number for the following species discussed below.
At each site the species is threatened by encroachment of woody and herbaceous vegetation, competition from rhizomatous perennials, fluctuations in hydrology, and threats associated with small population number and size; sites in New Jersey are threatened by illegal off-road vehicle use. Given the naturally fluctuating number of plants found at each site, and the isolated nature of the wetlands (limiting dispersal opportunities), even small changes in the species' habitat could result in local extirpation. Loss of any known sites would constitute a significant contraction of the species' range. An increase in regional precipitation patterns causing long-term flooding in the species' coastal plain pond habitat is recent and coincides with a precipitous decline in population size in New Jersey and first-time absence of the population in Delaware. Therefore, we are changing the immediacy of threats from nonimminent to imminent and, consequently, the LPN of the species from a 5 to a 2.
The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other threats. Whitebark pine also is currently experiencing mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle (
As the mountain pine beetle epidemic appears to be subsiding, we no longer consider this threat to be having the high level of impact that was seen in recent years. However, given projected warming trends, we expect that conditions will remain favorable for epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle into the foreseeable future. The significant threats from white pine blister rust, fire, and fire suppression, and environmental effects of climate change remain on the landscape. However, the overall magnitude of threat to whitebark pine is somewhat diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of survival. Survival and reproduction of genetically resistant trees are critical to the persistence of the species given the imminent, ubiquitous presence of white pine blister rust on the landscape. Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore imminent, and are now moderate in magnitude. Thus, we have changed the LPN for whitebark pine from a 2 to an 8.
As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the following species and considered factors that, individually and in combination, currently or potentially could pose a risk to the species and their habitats. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing these species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted because these species are not likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their respective ranges. Therefore, we no longer consider them to be candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status of these species and to accept additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will reconsider our determination in the event that we gather new information that indicates that the threats are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified through assessments of information contained in our files, as summarized here.
Anchialine pool shrimp (
New information has extended the range and habitat of
Our review of the best available scientific information indicates that
Anchialine pool shrimp (
New information has revealed that
The ESA provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this authority through the candidate program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. The CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding that the ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive a petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, and publish one of three possible findings (a “12-month finding”):
(1) The petitioned action is not warranted;
(2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA govern further procedures, regardless of whether we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or
(3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists. We refer to this third option as a “warranted-but-precluded finding.”
We define “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding to the candidate list.
Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (
Second, the CNOR serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make a 12-month petition finding in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA at least once a year, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We make these annual findings for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR. These annual findings supercede any findings from previous CNORs and the initial 12-month
Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to “implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species” for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to “make prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.” The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7). For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service's system for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA.
A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that we must consider in making and describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned from Table 1, below, which includes the lead region and the LPN for each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 56 candidates for which we have received a petition to list and the 3 listed species for which we have received a petition to reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species, has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher-priority listing actions. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.
Our review included updating the status of, and threats to, petitioned candidate or listed species for which we published findings, under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, as a result of this review, we are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species. However, for some of these species, we are currently engaged in a thorough review of all available data to determine whether to proceed with a proposed listing rule; this review may result in us concluding that listing is no longer warranted.
The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species was precluded by our work on higher-priority listing actions, listed below, during the period from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.
In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site:
To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending listing proposals and (2) that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the lists and to remove species from the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) The amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in relation to other actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery
We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a subcap for critical habitat designations for already-listed species to ensure that some funds within the spending cap for listing are available for completing Listing Program actions other than critical habitat designations for already-listed species (“The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the funds within the critical habitat subcap were available for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have not needed to use all of the funds within the critical habitat to comply with court orders, and we therefore could use the remaining funds within the subcap towards additional proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while we did not need to use all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to comply with court orders requiring critical habitat actions, we did not use the remaining funds towards additional proposed listing determinations, and instead used the remaining funds towards completing the critical habitat determinations concurrently with proposed listing determinations; this allowed us to combine the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY 2015, based on the Service's workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.
For FY 2012, Congress also put in place two additional subcaps within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the Service does not need to use all of the funds within either subcap, we are able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final listing determinations. In FY 2015, based on the Service's workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the foreign species subcap and the petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first, and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money available for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds in the listing cap—other than those within the subcaps needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing actions for foreign species, and petition findings—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2015, on December 16, 2014, Congress passed a Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), which provided funding through September 30, 2015, at the same level as FY 2014. In particular, it included an overall spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more than $1,504,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species, and no more than $1,501,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus had $ 12,905,000 available to work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.
An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the ESA and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court order or court-approved deadline.
Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process. As we implement our listing work plan and work on proposed rules for the highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest priority species. In addition, we take into consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second, because the settlement is court-approved, two broad categories of actions now fall within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): (1) The actions required to be completed in FY 2015 by the MDL Settlement Agreements; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for most of the candidate species identified in this CNOR (in particular, for those candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR). Therefore, each year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species—based on the Service's LPN prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions when appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of staff resources.
Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 are all precluded by higher priority listing actions, including listing actions with deadlines required by court-orders and court-approved settlement agreements and listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines. We provide tables in the
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of the resources available for delisting, which
We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's Listing Program in FY 2015. This work includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available scientific data about those species and the threats they face, and preparing proposed and final listing rules; and (3) adding species to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we made expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists in FY 2015.
First, we made expeditious progress in the third and final step: Listing qualified species. In FY 2015, we resolved the status of 31 species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing. Moreover, for 31 species, the resolution was to add them to the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and for 1 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also proposed to list an additional 67 qualified species, most with concurrent critical habitat proposals.
Second, we are making expeditious progress in the second step: working towards adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2015, we worked on developing proposed listing rules or not-warranted 12-month petition findings for 28 species (most of them with concurrent critical habitat proposals). Although we have not yet completed those actions, we are making expeditious progress towards doing so.
Third, we are making expeditious progress in the first step towards adding qualified species to the Lists: Identifying additional species that qualify for listing. In FY 2015, we completed 90-day petition findings for 67 species and 12-month petition findings for 27 species.
Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate species for which we have not made final determinations whether or not to list. On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a settlement agreement that put in place an ambitious schedule for completing proposed and final listing determinations at least through FY 2016; the court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 2011. That agreement required, among other things, that for all 251 species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service submit to the
The Service's progress in FY 2015 included completing and publishing the following determinations:
Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2015, but did not complete in FY 2015. For these species, we have completed the first step, and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species to the Lists. These actions are listed below. All the actions in the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court order or settlement agreement with the exception of the 90-day petition finding for the Miami tiger beetle.
We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 56 candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). We did not include an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted petition findings for the 56 candidate species for which we are preparing either proposed listing determinations or not warranted 12-month findings. However, for the resubmitted petition findings, in the course of preparing proposed listing determinations or 12-month not warranted findings, we continue to monitor new information about their status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of any of these candidate species; see summaries below regarding publication of these determinations (these species will remain on the candidate list until a proposed listing rule is published). Because the majority of these petitioned species were already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the status of these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.
During FY 2015, we also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for petitions to uplist three listed species (one grizzly bear population, Delta smelt, and
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists.
Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of many of the candidates, we continue to contribute to
Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species (for 12-month findings on resubmitted petitions for species that we determined no longer meet the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” see summaries above under Candidate Removals).
Peñasco least chipmunk (
The Peñasco least chipmunk faces threats from present or threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of the two historically occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals captured, is linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the highly fragmented nature of its distribution is a significant contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of natural recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all of its known range now or in the foreseeable future.
The one known remaining extant population of Peñasco least chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes and its isolation. Because of the reduced population size and lack of contiguous habitat adjacent to the extant White Mountains population, even a small impact on the White Mountains could have a very large impact on the status of the species as a whole. As a result of its restricted range, apparent small population size, and fragmented historical habitat, the White Mountains population is inherently vulnerable to extinction due to effects of small population sizes (
Washington ground squirrel (
Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (
Although data are not available to rigorously assess population trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates red tree voles have declined in the range of the DPS and are largely absent in areas where they were once relatively abundant. Older forests that provide habitat for red tree voles are limited and highly fragmented, while ongoing forest practices in much of the population's range maintain the remnant patches of older forest in a highly fragmented and isolated condition. Modeling indicates that 11 percent of the range currently contains tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the 22 percent of the population's range that is under Federal ownership.
Existing regulatory mechanisms on State and private lands are inadequate to prevent continued harvest of forest stands at a scale and extent that would be meaningful for conserving red tree
Pacific walrus (
Annually, females and young animals, as well as some males, migrate up to 1,500 km (932 mi) between winter breeding areas in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) and summer foraging areas in the Chukchi Sea. Historically, the females and calves remained on pack ice over the continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea throughout the summer, using it as a platform for resting after making shallow foraging dives for invertebrates on the sea floor. Sea ice also provides isolation from disturbance and predators. Since 1979, the extent of summer Arctic sea ice has declined. The lowest records of minimum sea ice extent occurred from 2007 to 2014. Based on the best scientific information available, we anticipate that sea ice will retreat northward off the Chukchi continental shelf for 1 to 5 months every year in the foreseeable future.
When ice in the Chukchi Sea melts beyond the limits of the continental shelf (and the ability of the walrus to obtain food), thousands of female and young walruses congregate at coastal haulouts. Although coastal haulouts have historically provided a place to rest, the aggregation of so many animals at this time of year has increased in the last 7 years. Not only are the number of animals more concentrated at coastal haulouts than on widely dispersed sea ice, but also the probability of disturbance from humans and terrestrial animals is much higher. Disturbances at coastal haulouts can cause stampedes, leading to mortalities and injuries. In addition, there is also concern that the concentration of animals will cause local prey depletion, leading to longer foraging trips, increased energy costs, and potential effects on female condition and calf survival. These effects may lead to a population decline.
We recognize that Pacific walruses face additional stressors from ocean warming, ocean acidification, disease, oil and gas exploration and development, increased shipping, commercial fishing, and subsistence harvest, but subsistence harvest is the only threat that could contribute to finding the species to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We found that subsistence harvest will contribute to putting the species in danger of extinction if the population declines but harvest levels remain the same. Because the threat of sea ice loss is not having significant population-level effects currently, but is projected to, we determined that the magnitude of this threat is moderate, not high. Because both the loss of sea ice habitat and the ongoing practice of subsistence harvest are presently occurring, these threats are imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 9 to this subspecies.
Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS (
Xantus's murrelet (
Red-crowned parrot (
As of 2004, half of the native population is believed to be found in the United States. Within Texas, the species is thought to move between urban areas in search of food and other available resources. The results of two seasons of monitoring the species' use of revegetated habitat, native habitat, and urban habitats within the Rio Grande
Conservation efforts include a project that was initiated by the Service and the Rio Grande Joint Venture in the Lower Rio Grande Valley to understand and compare how birds are using revegetated tracts of land versus native refuge tracts and urban habitats, including the effect of previous flooding and projections of how climate change may affect the distribution of birds in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. A final report for this project showed red-crowned parrots using only urban habitats during the breeding season, but it is hoped that some of the revegetation efforts, as well as conservation of existing native tracts of land, will provide habitat in the future once the trees have matured. Because loss of nesting habitat is a concern for the species in southern Texas, two projects, one in Weslaco and one in Harlingen, Texas, were initiated in 2011, to provide nest boxes in palms for the red-crowned parrot. As of March 2013, these nest sites had not been used, although red-crowned parrots had actively traveled throughout the area during the prior spring, summer, and fall months.
The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, conversion of suitable habitat, and urbanization, as well as trapping and illegal trade of the parrots. Multiple laws and regulations have been passed to control illegal trade, but they are not adequately enforced. In addition, existing regulations do not adequately address the habitat threats to the species. Thus, the inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to threaten the red-crowned parrot. However, at least four city ordinances have been established in South Texas prohibiting malicious acts (injury, mortality) to birds and their habitat. A new effort in 2015 is under way to gain recognition for the species as indigenous in Texas; a classification that would afford State protection. Disease and predation still do not threaten the species. Pesticide exposure is not known to affect the red-crowned parrot. Threats to the species are extensive and are imminent and, therefore, we have determined that a LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the species.
Sprague's pipit (
Louisiana pine snake (
Gopher tortoise, eastern population (
The gopher tortoise ranges from extreme southern South Carolina south through peninsular Florida, and west through southern Georgia, Florida, southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into extreme southeastern Louisiana. The eastern population of the gopher tortoise in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate species; the western population of gopher tortoise—which is found in Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and Louisiana—is federally listed as threatened.
The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is habitat fragmentation, destruction, and modification (either deliberately or from inattention), including conversion of longleaf pine forests to incompatible silvicultural or agricultural habitats, urbanization, shrub and hardwood encroachment (mainly from fire exclusion or insufficient fire management), construction of solar farms, and establishment and spread of invasive species. Other threats include disease, predation (mainly on nests and young tortoises), and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, specifically those needed to protect and enhance relocated tortoise populations in perpetuity. The magnitude of threats to the eastern population of gopher tortoise is moderate to low, since the population extends over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in some areas. However, since the eastern population is currently being affected by a number of threats, including destruction and modification of its habitat, disease, predation, exotics, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, these threats are imminent. Thus, we have continued to assign a LPN of 8 for this species.
Sonoyta mud turtle (
Relict leopard frog (
Striped newt (
The historical range of the striped newt was likely similar to the current range. However, loss of native longleaf habitat, fire suppression, and the natural patchy distribution of upland habitats used by striped newts have resulted in fragmentation of existing populations. Other threats to the species include disease, drought, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Overall, the magnitude of the threats is moderate and imminent. Therefore, we assigned a LPN of 8 to the newt. However, due to recent information that suggests the striped newt is likely extirpated from Apalachicola National Forest, the LPN may warrant changing to a lower number in the future.
Berry Cave salamander (
Ongoing threats to Berry Cave salamanders include lye leaching in the Meades Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying activities, the possible development of a roadway with potential to impact the recharge area for the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox County, water quality impacts despite existing State and Federal laws, and hybridization between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders in Meades Quarry Cave. These threats, coupled with confined distribution of the species and apparent low population densities, are all factors that leave the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to extirpation. We have determined that the Berry Cave salamander faces ongoing, and therefore imminent. The threats to the salamander are moderate in magnitude because, although some of the threats to the species are widespread, the salamander still occurs in several different cave systems, and existing populations appear stable. We continue to assign this species a LPN of 8.
Black Warrior waterdog (
Arkansas darter (
Pearl darter (
Sicklefin redhorse (
Longfin smelt (
Longfin smelt numbers in the Bay-Delta have declined significantly since the 1980s. Abundance indices derived from the Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT), Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and Bay Study Otter Trawl (BSOT) all show marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations from 2002 to 2012. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the lowest recorded in the 40-year history of CDFG's FMWT monitoring surveys.
The primary threat to the DPS is from reduced freshwater flows. Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly correlated with longfin smelt abundance —longfin smelt abundance is lower when winter-spring flows are lower. The long-term decline in abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta has been partially attributed to reductions in food availability and disruptions of the Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative overbite clam and likely by increasing ammonium concentrations. The threats remain high in magnitude, since they pose a significant risk to the DPS throughout its range. The threats are ongoing, and thus are imminent. Thus, we are maintaining an LPN of 3 for this population.
Texas fatmucket (
The Texas fatmucket is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fatmucket and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction of the Texas fatmucket in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the Texas fatmucket are high in magnitude, because habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas fatmucket and profoundly affect its survival and recruitment. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to extirpation or extinction. These threats are imminent because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Texas fatmucket populations are very small and vulnerable to extirpation, which increases the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we maintained an LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket.
Texas fawnsfoot (
The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels, as well as by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fawnsfoot and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction of the Texas fawnsfoot in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the Texas fawnsfoot are high in magnitude. Habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas fawnsfoot and profoundly affect its survival and recruitment. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic events. These threats are imminent because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation has already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. The small Texas fawnsfoot populations are at risk of extirpation, which increases the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the Texas fawnsfoot an LPN of 2.
Texas hornshell (
Golden orb (
The golden orb is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the golden orb and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the golden orb becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the golden orb are moderate in magnitude. Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the golden orb and are likely to be exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts, four large populations remain, including one that was recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent because habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will likely continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. The three smaller golden orb populations are vulnerable to extirpation, which increases the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 8 for the golden orb.
Smooth pimpleback (
The smooth pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation, and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the smooth pimpleback and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the smooth pimpleback becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the smooth pimpleback are moderate in magnitude. Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the smooth pimpleback and may be exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts, several large populations remain, including one that was recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent because they have already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Several smooth pimpleback populations are quite small and vulnerable to extirpation, which increases the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 8 for the smooth pimpleback.
Texas pimpleback (
The Texas pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change (which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts), population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas pimpleback and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the Texas pimpleback becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the Texas pimpleback are high in magnitude, because habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread
Black mudalia (
Magnificent ramshorn (
Salinity and pH are major factors limiting the distribution of the magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers freshwater bodies with circumneutral pH (
While several factors have likely contributed to the possible extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in the wild, the primary factors include loss of habitat associated with the extirpation of beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th century, increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, and increased input of nutrients and other pollutants. The magnificent ramshorn appears to be extirpated from the wild due to habitat loss and degradation resulting from a variety of human-induced and natural factors. The only known surviving individuals of the species are presently being held and propagated at a private residence, a lab at North Carolina (NC) State University's Veterinary School, and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's Watha State Fish Hatchery. While efforts have been made to restore habitat for the magnificent ramshorn at one of the sites known to have previously supported the species, all of the sites continue to be affected or threatened by the same factors (
Huachuca springsnail (
Hermes copper butterfly (
Primary threats to Hermes copper butterfly are megafires (large wildfires), and small and isolated populations. Secondary threats include increased wildfire frequency that results in habitat loss, and combined impacts of existing development, possible future (limited) development, existing dispersal barriers, and fragmentation of habitat. Hermes copper butterfly occupies scattered areas of sage scrub and chaparral habitat in an arid region susceptible to wildfires of increasing frequency and size. The likelihood that individuals of the species will be burned as a result of catastrophic wildfires, combined with the isolation and small size of extant populations makes Hermes copper butterfly particularly vulnerable to population extirpation rangewide. Overall, the threats that Hermes copper butterfly faces are high in magnitude because the major threats (particularly mortality due to wildfire and increased wildfire frequency) occur throughout all of the species' range and are likely to result in mortality and population-level impacts to the species. The threats are nonimminent overall because the impact of wildfire to Hermes copper butterfly and its habitat occurs on a sporadic basis and we do not have the ability to predict when wildfires will occur. This species faces high-magnitude nonimminent threats; therefore, we assigned this species a LPN of 5.
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (
The primary threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are development, habitat fragmentation, and other natural or manmade factors such as human-induced fires, use of herbicides and pesticides, vegetation management, and climate change. These factors would substantially affect the distribution and abundance of the species, as well as its habitat. In addition, the lack of effective enforcement makes the existing policies and regulations inadequate for the protection of the species' habitat. These threats are imminent because known populations occur in areas that are subject to development, increased traffic, and increased road maintenance and construction. The threats are high in magnitude, because they cause direct population-level impacts during all life stages. These threats are expected to continue and potentially increase in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we assign a LPN of 2 to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Clifton Cave beetle (
Icebox Cave beetle (
Louisville Cave beetle (
Tatum Cave beetle (
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (
Although the rattlesnake-master plant is widely distributed across 26 States and is a common plant in remnant prairies, it is a conservative species, meaning it is not found in disturbed areas, and occurs in low densities. The habitat range for the rattlesnake-master borer moth is very narrow and appears to be limiting for the species. The ongoing effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, and modification from agriculture, development, flooding, invasive species, and secondary succession have resulted in fragmented populations and population declines. Rattlesnake-master borer moths are affected by habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Almost all of the sites with extant populations of the rattlesnake-master borer moth are isolated from one another, with the populations in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oklahoma occurring within a single site for each State, thus precluding recolonization from other populations. These small, isolated populations are likely to become unviable over time due to lower genetic diversity which reduces their ability to adapt to environmental change, effects of stochastic events, and inability to recolonize areas where they are extirpated.
Rattlesnake-master borer moths have life-history traits that make them more susceptible to outside stressors. They are univoltine (having a single flight per year), do not disperse widely, and are monophagous (have only one food source). The life history of the species makes it particularly sensitive to fire, which is the primary practice used in prairie management. The species is only safe from fire once it bores into the root of the host plant, which makes adult, egg, and first larval stages subject to mortality during prescribed burns and wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct mortality to the moth and destroy food plants if the intensity, extent, or timing is not carefully managed. Although fire management is a threat to the species, lack of management is also a threat, and at least one site has become extirpated likely because of the succession to woody habitat. The species is sought after by collectors and the host plant is very easy to identify, making the moth susceptible to collection, and thus many sites are kept undisclosed to the public.
Existing regulatory mechanisms provide protection for 12 of the 16 sites containing rattlesnake-master borer moth populations. Illinois' endangered species statute provides regulatory mechanisms to protect the species from potential impacts from actions such as development and collection on the 10 Illinois sites; however, illegal
Some threats that the rattlesnake-master moth faces are high in magnitude, such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, and population isolation. These threats with the highest magnitude occur in many of the populations throughout the species' range, but although they are likely to affect each population at some time, they are not likely to affect all of the populations at any one time. Other threats, such as agricultural and nonagricultural development, mortality from implementation of some prairie management tools (such as fire), flooding, succession, and climate change, are of moderate to low magnitude. For example, the life history of rattlesnake-master borer moths makes them highly sensitive to fire, which can cause mortality of individuals through most of the year and can affect entire populations. Conversely, complete fire suppression can also be a threat to rattlesnake-master borer moths as prairie habitat declines and woody or invasive species become established such that the species' only food plant is not found in disturbed prairies. Although these threats can cause direct and indirect mortality of the species, they are of moderate or low magnitude because they affect only some populations throughout the range and to varying degrees. Overall, the threats are moderate. The threats are imminent because they are ongoing; every known population of rattlesnake-master borer moth has at least one ongoing threat, and some have several working in tandem. Thus, we assigned a LPN of 8 to this species.
Stephan's riffle beetle (
Arapahoe snowfly (
Climate change is a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly, and modifies its habitats by reducing snowpacks, altering streamflows, increasing water temperatures, fostering mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and increasing the frequency of destructive wildfires. Limited dispersal capabilities, a restricted range, dependence on pristine habitats, and a small population size make the Arapahoe snowfly vulnerable to demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophes. Furthermore, regulatory mechanisms appear inadequate to reduce these threats, which may act cumulatively to affect the species. The threats to the Arapahoe snowfly are high in magnitude because they occur throughout the species' limited range. However, the threats are nonimminent. While limited dispersal capabilities, restricted range, dependence on pristine habitats, and small population size are characteristics that make this species vulnerable to stochastic events and catastrophic events (and potential impacts from climate change), these events are not currently occurring and increased temperatures will adversely affect the species in the future. Therefore, we have assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN of 5.
Meltwater lednian stonefly (
Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss (with glaciers predicted to be gone by 2030)— including reduced streamflows, and increased water temperatures—are expected to significantly reduce the occurrence of populations and extent of suitable habitat for the species in Glacier NP. In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these environmental changes due to global climate change. We determined that the meltwater lednian stonefly was a candidate for listing in a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on April 5, 2011 (76 FR 18684). We have assigned the species an LPN of 5, based on three criteria: (1) The high magnitude of threat, which is projected to substantially reduce the amount of suitable habitat relative to the species' current range; (2) the low immediacy of the threat based on the lack of documented evidence that climate change is affecting stonefly habitat; and (3) the taxonomic status of the species, which is a full species.
Highlands tiger beetle (
The most significant threats to skiff milkvetch are recreation, roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect the species from these threats. Recreational impacts are likely to increase, given the close proximity of skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison and the increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain vehicles. Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users, and contains over 40 percent of the skiff milkvetch units. Other threats to the species include residential and urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; climate change; increasing periodic drought; nonnative, invasive cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to skiff milkvetch are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and occurring rangewide, they do not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because the species is currently facing them in many portions of its range. Therefore, we have assigned skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8.
The most significant threats to the species are degradation of habitat by fire, followed by invasion by nonnative cheatgrass and subsequent increase in fire frequency. These threats currently affect about 40 percent of the species' entire known range. Cheatgrass is likely to increase given its rapid spread and persistence in habitat disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management, development of infrastructure, and the inability of land managers to control it on a landscape scale. Other threats to Chapin Mesa milkvetch include fires, fire break clearings, and drought, and existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these threats. The threats to the species overall are imminent and moderate in magnitude, because the species is currently facing them in many portions of its range, but the threats do not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale. Therefore, we have assigned Chapin Mesa milkvetch an LPN of 8.
Fremont County rockcress has a threat that is not identified, but that is indicated by the small and overall declining population size. Although the threat is not fully understood, we know it exists as indicated by the declining population. The overall population size may be declining from a variety of unknown causes, with drought or disease possibly contributing to the trend. The downward trend may have been leveled off somewhat recently, but without improved population numbers, the species may reach a population level at which other stressors become threats. We are unable to determine how climate change may affect the species in the future. To the extent that we understand the species, other potential habitat-related threats have been removed through the implementation of Federal regulatory mechanisms and associated actions. Overutilization, predation, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms are not viewed as threats to the species. The threats that Fremont County rockcress faces are moderate in magnitude, primarily because of the recent leveling off of the population decline. The threat to Fremont County rockcress is imminent, because we have evidence that the species is currently facing a threat indicated by a reduced population size. The threat appears to be ongoing, although we are unsure of the extent and timing of its effects on the species. Thus, we have assigned
Wright's marsh thistle faces threats primarily from natural and human-caused modifications of its habitat due to ground and surface water depletion, drought, invasion of
Long-term drought, in combination with ground and surface water withdrawal, pose a current and future threat to Wright's marsh thistle and its habitat. In addition, we expect that these threats will likely intensify in the foreseeable future. However, the threats are moderate in magnitude because the majority of the threats (habitat loss and degradation due to alteration of the hydrology of its rare wetland habitat), while serious and occurring rangewide, do not at this time collectively and significantly adversely affect the species at a population level. All of the threats are ongoing and therefore imminent. Thus, we continue to assign an LPN of 8 to Wright's marsh thistle.
The primary threat to Frisco buckwheat is habitat destruction from precious metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has the potential to extirpate one population in the near future and extirpate all populations in the foreseeable future. Ongoing exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will continue, but it will take time for the mining operations to be put into place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Frisco buckwheat populations over a longer time scale. Other threats to the species include nonnative species in conjunction with surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these threats. Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and climate change. The threats that Frisco buckwheat faces are moderate in magnitude, because while serious and occurring rangewide, the threats do not significantly reduce populations on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco buckwheat an LPN of 8.
The primary threat to Ostler's peppergrass is habitat destruction from precious metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries, but mining is only currently occurring in the area of one population. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has the potential to extirpate one population in the future. Ongoing exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will continue, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Ostler's peppergrass populations over a longer time scale. Other threats to the species include nonnative species, vulnerability associated with small population size, and climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these threats. The threats that Ostler's peppergrass faces are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and occurring rangewide, the threats do not collectively result in significant population declines on a short time scale. The threats are imminent because the species is currently facing them across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Ostler's peppergrass an LPN of 8.
The continued survival of bracted twistflower is imminently threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, severe herbivory from dense herds of white-tailed deer and other herbivores, and the increased density of woody plant cover. Additional ongoing threats include erosion and trampling from foot and mountain-bike trails, a pathogenic fungus of unknown origin, and inadequate protection by existing regulations. Furthermore, due to the small size and isolation of remaining populations, and lack of gene flow between them, several populations are now inbred and may have insufficient genetic diversity for long-term survival. Bracted twistflower populations often occur in habitats that also support the endangered golden-cheeked warbler, but the two species may require different vegetation management. Bracted twistflower is potentially threatened by as-yet unknown impacts of climate change. The Service has established a voluntary memorandum of agreement with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the City of Austin, Travis County, the Lower Colorado River Authority, and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center to protect bracted twistflower and its habitats on tracts of Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. Overall, the threats to bracted twistflower are of moderate magnitude because most of the populations occur on protected land where the threats will be managed through the MOA. The threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We maintain a LPN of 8 for this species.
On the private and State lands, the most significant threat to Frisco clover is habitat destruction from mining for precious metals and gravel. Active mining claims, recent prospecting, and an increasing demand for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining in Frisco clover habitats will increase in the foreseeable future, likely resulting in the loss of large numbers of plants. Other threats to Frisco clover include nonnative, invasive species in conjunction with surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these threats. Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and climate change. The threats to Frisco clover are moderate in magnitude because, while serious and occurring rangewide, they are not acting independently or cumulatively to have a highly significant negative impact on its survival or reproductive capacity. For example, although mining for precious metals and gravel historically occurred throughout Frisco clover's range, and mining operations may eventually expand into occupied habitats, there are no active mines within the immediate vicinity of any known population. The threats are imminent because the species is currently facing them across
We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on three petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are one population of the grizzly bear (
Grizzly bear (
Delta smelt (
The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by State and Federal water export facilities, summer and fall increases in salinity and water clarity resulting from decreases in freshwater flow into the estuary, and effects from introduced species. Ammonia in the form of ammonium may also be a significant threat to the survival of the delta smelt. Additional potential threats are predation by striped and largemouth bass and inland silversides, contaminants, and small population size. Existing regulatory mechanisms have not proven adequate to halt the decline of delta smelt since the time of listing as a threatened species.
However, higher-priority listing actions, including court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude reclassifying the delta smelt. Furthermore, proposed rules to reclassify threatened species to endangered are a lower priority than listing currently unprotected species (
As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we have retained the recommendation of uplisting the delta smelt to an endangered species with a LPN of 2, based on high magnitude and imminent threats. The magnitude of the threats is high, because the threats occur rangewide and result in mortality or significantly reduce the reproductive capacity of the species and they are, in some cases (
We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This notice identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate animals. This compilation relies on information from status surveys conducted for candidate assessment and on information from State Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural resource interests, and comments received in response to previous notices of review.
Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged alphabetically by common names under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided into two groups: (1) Flowering plants and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an “equals” sign. Several species that have not yet been formally described in the scientific literature are included; such species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics), followed by “sp.” or “ssp.” We incorporate standardized common names in these notices as they become available. We sort plants by scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
Table 1 lists all candidate species, plus species currently proposed for listing under the ESA. We emphasize that in this notice we are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we will develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal agencies, and other parties to give consideration to these species in environmental planning.
In Table 1, the “category” column on the left side of the table identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
The “Priority” column indicates the LPN for each candidate species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing priority system in the
The third column, “Lead Region,” identifies the Regional Office to which you should direct information, comments, or questions (see addresses under Request for Information at the end of the
Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
Species in Table 2 of this notice are those we included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (published December 5, 2014, at 79 FR 72450) that are no longer proposed species or candidates for listing. Since December 5, 2014, we listed 31 species, withdrew 1 species from proposed status, and removed 23 species from the candidate list. The first column indicates the present status of each species, using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
The second column indicates why the species is no longer a candidate or proposed species, using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common name, and historical range include information as previously described for Table 1.
We request you submit any further information on the species named in this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are particularly interested in any information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate status;
(3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent for a species;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing candidate species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical ranges.
Submit information, materials, or comments regarding a particular species to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having the lead responsibility for that species. The regional addresses follow:
We will provide information received to the Region having lead responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission. We will likewise consider all information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is appropriate). Information and comments we receive will become part of the administrative record for the species, which we maintain at the appropriate Regional Office.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
(1) The designation of Burundi as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for purposes of section 506A of the 1974 Act is terminated, effective on January 1, 2016.
(2) In order to reflect in the HTS that beginning on January 1, 2016, Burundi shall no longer be designated as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, general note 16(a) to the HTS is modified by deleting “Republic of Burundi” from the list of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
(3) In order to ensure that imports of sugar do not disrupt the orderly marketing of commodities in the United States, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex I to this proclamation.
(4) In order to implement Executive Order 13651 of August 6, 2013, as authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act, the HTS is modified as provided in Annex II to this proclamation.
(5) In order to implement U.S. tariff commitments under the 2004 Agreement through December 31, 2016, the HTS is modified as provided in Annex III to this proclamation.
(6)(a) The modifications to the HTS set forth in Annex III to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to eligible agricultural products of Israel that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2016.
(b) The provisions of subchapter VII of chapter 99 of the HTS, as modified by Annex III to this proclamation, shall continue in effect through December 31, 2016.
(7) In order to make technical corrections necessary to provide the intended tariff treatment to goods of St. Kitts and Nevis in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8921 of December 20, 2012, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex IV to this proclamation.
(8) In order to make technical corrections necessary to provide the intended tariff treatment to goods of Panama in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8894 of October 29, 2012, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex IV to this proclamation.
(9) In order to make technical corrections necessary to provide the intended tariff treatment to goods of Colombia in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8818 of May 14, 2012, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex IV to this proclamation.
(10) In order to make technical corrections necessary to provide the intended tariff treatment to goods of Bahrain in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8039 of July 27, 2006, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex IV to this proclamation.
(11) In order to make technical corrections necessary to provide the intended tariff treatment to goods of Korea in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex IV to this proclamation.
(12) Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
| 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 |