Page Range | 1-144 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 129 - In the Matter of China Domestica Bio-Technology Holdings, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading | |
81 FR 116 - In the Matter of USA Graphite, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading | |
81 FR 98 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 98 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 91 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 84 - Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program | |
81 FR 85 - Membership of the Performance Review Board | |
81 FR 103 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 113 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 109 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 110 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 105 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 108 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 11 - Safety Zone; Intracoastal Waterway; Lake Charles, LA | |
81 FR 10 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Three Mile Slough, Rio Vista, CA | |
81 FR 2 - Amendment To Clarify When Component Part Testing Can Be Used and Which Textile Products Have Been Determined Not To Exceed the Allowable Lead Content Limits; Delay of Effective Date and Reopening of Comment Period | |
81 FR 82 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Intake Diversion Dam Fish Passage Project, Dawson County, Montana | |
81 FR 82 - Notice of Intent to Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Conduct Scoping Meeting for the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project General Reevaluation Report and Integrated EIS/EIR, County of Marin, CA | |
81 FR 140 - Thirty-Eighth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (224) Airport Security Access Control Systems | |
81 FR 138 - Fifteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (209) ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS (Joint With EUROCAE WG-49, EUROCAE WG-51 Subgroup 1, and RTCA SC-186 Working Group 3) | |
81 FR 140 - Twenty-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (214) Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services (Joint With EUROCAE WG-78) | |
81 FR 139 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Specific Release Form | |
81 FR 138 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Suspected Unapproved Parts Notification | |
81 FR 139 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Airport Grant Program | |
81 FR 63 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
81 FR 67 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review | |
81 FR 74 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews | |
81 FR 144 - Commission on Care | |
81 FR 96 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
81 FR 81 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 82 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
81 FR 144 - MyVA Federal Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 41 - Extension of the Workers' Compensation Offset From Age 65 to Full Retirement Age-Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act | |
81 FR 87 - Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards; Supplemental Notice of Agenda and Discussion Topics for Staff Technical Conference | |
81 FR 89 - ISO New England Inc. Participating Transmission Owners Administrative Committee: Emera Maine; Town of Braintree Electric Light Department; NSTAR Electric Company; Chicopee Electric Light Department; Central Maine Power Company; Maine Electric Power Company (MEPCO); Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative & Connecticut Transmission Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative; The City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; New Hampshire Transmission, LLC; Green Mountain Power Corporation; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; New England Power Company, d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Eversource Energy Service Company as agent for: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, and Public Service Company of New Hampshire; Town of Hudson Light and Power Department; Town of Middleborough Gas & Electric Department; Town of Norwood Municipal Light Department; Town of Reading Municipal Light Department; Town of Wallingford (CT) Electric Division; Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. and Vermont Transco, LLC; Vermont Public Power Supply Authority; Shrewsbury Electric and Cable Operations | |
81 FR 90 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Prior Notice Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
81 FR 85 - UGI Sunbury, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sunbury Pipeline Project | |
81 FR 89 - East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Loudon Expansion Project | |
81 FR 86 - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | |
81 FR 118 - In the Matter of Changda International Holdings, Inc.: Order of Suspension of Trading | |
81 FR 135 - In the Matter of Zhong Wen International Holding Co., Ltd.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
81 FR 61 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Regional Office Administered Program (ROAP) Child Nutrition Payment Center (for the National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Special Milk Programs) | |
81 FR 5 - Indirect Food Additives: Paper and Paperboard Components | |
81 FR 101 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC | |
81 FR 98 - Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment | |
81 FR 143 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Extension With Revision; Comment Request; Bank Secrecy Act/Money Laundering Risk Assessment | |
81 FR 141 - Agency Request for Approval of a New Information Collection: Recruitment and Debriefing of Human Subjects for Head-Up Displays and Distraction Potential | |
81 FR 91 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 8 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
81 FR 42 - Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Improving Kids' Environment, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, and James Huff; Filing of Food Additive Petition | |
81 FR 115 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 115 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 94 - Unique Device Identification: Convenience Kits; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
81 FR 116 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 114 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 114 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 115 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 115 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 116 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 96 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
81 FR 1 - Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations; Technical Amendment | |
81 FR 104 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 102 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 112 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 135 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Modify the Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology by Incorporating Variations in Implied Volatility | |
81 FR 116 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NASDAQ OMX PHLX Fee Schedule To Increase the Options Surcharge Fee for MNX and NDX | |
81 FR 131 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Professional Subscriber Fee for Non-Display Usage via Direct Access | |
81 FR 119 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc. | |
81 FR 129 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc. | |
81 FR 120 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade the Shares of the Elkhorn S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Commodity ETF of Elkhorn ETF Trust | |
81 FR 3 - Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual | |
81 FR 106 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 107 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 114 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 111 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 95 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 93 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
81 FR 142 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in McLennan County, TX | |
81 FR 92 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 30 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines | |
81 FR 27 - Airworthiness Directives; Technify Motors GmbH Reciprocating Engines | |
81 FR 81 - Science Advisory Board | |
81 FR 22 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 34 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
81 FR 38 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
81 FR 24 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 28 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation | |
81 FR 32 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
81 FR 63 - Foreign-Trade Zone 78-Nashville, Tennessee; Application for Expansion of Subzone 78A, Nissan North America, Inc., Smyrna, Tennessee | |
81 FR 75 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 78 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 72 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
81 FR 13 - Announcement of Final Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List | |
81 FR 69 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 63 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 47 - Confidential Business Information | |
81 FR 62 - Klamath National Forest, California; Craggy Vegetation Management Project | |
81 FR 44 - Electronic and Information Technology | |
81 FR 19 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries |
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The FAA is correcting a final rule published on July 15, 2013. In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to create new certification and qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier operations. The FAA unintentionally required without notice and comment that if a certificate holder conducting part 135 operations who has voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121 training and qualification requirements, a pilot serving as a second in command in part 135 for that certificate holder is required to have an airline transport pilot certificate and an aircraft type rating. This document corrects those errors and makes several additional miscellaneous corrections to part 61 and a cross-reference error in part 121.
Barbara Adams, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; email
On July 15, 2013, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations” (78 FR 42324). In that final rule, which became effective July 15, 2013, the FAA revised the pilot certificate requirements for a second in command (SIC) in part 121 operations. Section 121.436(b) requires the SIC to hold an ATP certificate and an aircraft type rating for the airplane flown.
The FAA intended these certification requirements to apply only to pilots serving in part 121 operations. Existing § 135.3(c) states, however, that if authorized by the Administrator upon application, each certificate holder that conducts operations under part 135 to which § 135.3(b) does not apply,
Each certificate holder conducting part 135 operations who has voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121 training and qualification requirements, is required to comply with Subparts N and O of part 121. Because the certification requirements in § 121.436 are located in subpart O of part 121, an SIC in those operations is now required by reference to hold an ATP certificate and an aircraft type rating. The FAA did not discuss this issue in the preamble to the final rule nor did the FAA intend to impose this requirement on certificate holders conducting part 135 operations who have voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121 training and qualification requirements.
Because the FAA did not intend to impose additional requirements on SICs serving in part 135 operations in which the certificate holder has voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121 training and qualification requirements, the FAA is revising § 135.3(c) to clarify that an SIC in those part 135 operations does not need to comply with § 121.436(b) but may continue to hold a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.
The FAA is also making three minor corrections that have been identified since publication of the final rule. In § 61.155(d), the FAA is making it clear that the training required by § 61.156 is only required for those pilots seeking an ATP certificate in the airplane category with a multiengine class rating. In § 61.165(f)(2), the FAA is clarifying that a knowledge test applicable to multiengine airplanes is required only if the pilot does not have valid ATP airplane knowledge test results that were taken prior to August 1, 2014. This correction is necessary to be consistent with the eligibility requirements in § 61.153, which is referenced in § 61.165(f)(1). The FAA notes that until July 31, 2016, pilots will be able to use the same ATP-airplane knowledge test with passing results taken prior to August 1, 2014, for both the ATP airplane single-engine class rating and multiengine class rating practical tests. In § 61.167(a)(2), the FAA is correcting the inadvertent exclusion of helicopter pilots that hold an ATP certificate in the rotorcraft category from the privilege of instructing.
Finally, the FAA is correcting a cross-reference error. In § 121.431, the FAA is correcting the cross-reference in paragraph (a)(1) to reflect § 135.244 rather than § 135.344.
Because these amendments clarify existing requirements and result in no substantive change, the FAA finds that the notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendments effective in less than 30 days.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration is amending chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
(d) An applicant who successfully completes the knowledge test for an airline transport pilot certificate prior to August 1, 2014, must successfully complete the practical test within 24 months from the month in which the knowledge test was successfully completed. An applicant who passes the knowledge test prior to August 1, 2014, but fails to successfully complete the airplane category with a multiengine class rating practical test within 24 months must complete the airline transport pilot certification training program specified in § 61.156 and retake the knowledge test prior to applying for the airplane category with a multiengine class rating practical test.
(f) * * *
(2) After July 31, 2014, pass a required knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas of § 61.155(c), as applicable to multiengine airplanes; unless a pilot can present valid airline transport pilot knowledge test results from a test taken prior to August 1, 2014.
(a) * * *
(2) A person who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and has met the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159 or § 61.161, and the age requirements of § 61.153(a)(1) of this part may instruct—
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).
(a) * * *
(1) Prescribes crewmember qualifications for all certificate holders except where otherwise specified. The qualification requirements of this subpart also apply to each certificate holder that conducts commuter operations under part 135 of this chapter with airplanes for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certification rules of this chapter. The Administrator may authorize any other certificate holder that conducts operations under part 135 of this chapter to comply with the training and qualification requirements of this subpart instead of subparts E, G, and H of part 135 of this chapter, except that these certificate holders may choose to comply with the operating experience requirements of § 135.244 of this chapter, instead of the requirements of § 121.434. Notwithstanding the requirements of this subpart, a pilot serving under part 135 of this chapter as second in command may meet the requirements of § 135.245 instead of the requirements of § 121.436; and
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105; Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).
(c) If authorized by the Administrator upon application, each certificate holder that conducts operations under this part to which paragraph (b) of this section does not apply, may comply with the applicable sections of subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements of subparts E, G, and H of this part, except that those authorized certificate holders may choose to comply with the operating experience requirements of § 135.244, instead of the requirements of § 121.434 of this chapter. Notwithstanding the requirements of this paragraph, a pilot serving under this part as second in command may meet the requirements of § 135.245 instead of the requirements of § 121.436.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule; delay of effective date and reopening of comment period.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) published a direct final rule (“DFR”) and notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) in the same issue of the
The effective date of the direct final rule published on October 14, 2015, at 80 FR 61729, which was delayed from December 14, 2015, until January 13, 2016 by a document published on November 19, 2015 at 80
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, by any of the following methods:
Kristina Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; (301) 987-2558; email;
On October 14, 2015, the Commission published a DFR and an NPR in the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual and related rules to reflect updates to the EDGAR system. The updates are being made to add the submission form types X-17A-5 and X-17A-5/A for broker-dealer annual reports in electronic format; add the new submission form types C, C-W, C-U, C-U-W, C/A, C/A-W, C-AR, C-AR-W, C-AR/A, C-AR/A-W, C-TR and C-TR-W pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding; add the new submission form types N-MFP1 and N-MFP1/A for money market mutual funds; disseminate raw and rendered eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) submissions; and update Item 1 of the Regulation A submission form types 1-A, 1-A/A, 1-A POS, DOA, and DOS/A to accept negative values in the “Total Assets,” “Total Stockholders' Equity,” and “Total Liabilities and Equity” fields. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded to support this functionality on December 14, 2015. On January 25, 2016, EDGAR will be updated to add new “Funding Portal” applicant type for filers to select when completing the process to apply for EDGAR access (New) on the EDGAR Filer Management Web site; and add the new submission form types CFPORTAL, CFPORTAL/A and CFPORTAL-W pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding.
Effective January 4, 2016. The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 4, 2016.
In the Division of Trading and Markets, for questions concerning Form X-17A-5 and Form Funding Portal, contact Kathy Bateman at (202) 551-4345; in the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning Form C and related forms, contact Heather Mackintosh at (202) 551-8111; in the Division of Investment Management, for questions concerning Form N-MFP1, contact Heather Fernandez at 202-551-6708; and in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, for questions concerning eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) disseminations, contact Walter Hamscher at (202) 551-5397.
We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I and Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.
The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 24 (December 2015), and Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 35 (December 2015). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order
The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 15.4 on December 14, 2015 and will introduce the following changes:
Broker-dealers will now be able to submit Form X-17A-5 Part III in electronic format using the following submission form types:
These submission form types can be accessed by clicking the “File X-17A-5 Part III” link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, filers may construct XML submissions for X-17A-5 and X-17A-5/A by following the “EDGAR Form X-17A-5 XML Technical Specification” document located on the SEC's Public Web site (
Submission form types X-17A-5 and X-17A-5/A will include the “Request Confidentiality” check box to allow applicants to request confidential treatment for each attached document that is not required to be made public. EDGAR will not disseminate any attached documents that are designated as confidential.
Pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding, EDGAR will be updated to include the following new submission form types:
Issuers can access these submission form types from the “Regulation Crowdfunding” link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, issuers may construct XML submissions for these submission form types by following the “EDGAR Form C XML Technical Specification” document located on the SEC's Public Web site (
In connection with amendments to the rules governing money market mutual funds (or “money market funds”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 the following changes will be made:
• EDGAR will be updated to include two new submission types—N-MFP1 and N-MFP1/A—to incorporate the amendments to Form N-MFP adopted by the Commission on July 23, 2014.
These two new submission types will be accepted from the EDGAR Filing Web site via filer-constructed XML submissions, as described in the Form N-MFP1 XML Technical Specification available on the SEC's Public Web site (
EDGAR will be updated to disseminate raw and rendered XBRL documents. The rendered eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) documents will be displayed as human-readable documents.
Finally, EDGAR will be updated to accept negative values in the “Total Assets,” “Total Stockholders' Equity,” and “Total Liabilities and Equity” fields in Item 1 of the submission form types 1-A, 1-A/A, 1-A POS, DOS and DOS/A.
On January 25, 2016, EDGAR Release 16.0.1 will introduce the following changes:
• Filers will now be able to select the new “Funding Portal” Applicant Type when completing the process to apply for EDGAR access (New) on the EDGAR Filer Management Web site.
• Pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding, Funding Portals will be able to register with the Commission, amend their registration and withdraw their registration, using the following new submission form types:
○ CFPORTAL—Form Funding Portal: Initial application of funding portal.
○ CFPORTAL/A—Form Funding Portal/A: Amendment to registration, including a successor registration.
○ CFPORTAL-W—Form Funding Portal-W: Withdrawal of the funding portal's registration.
These submission form types can be accessed by clicking the “Regulation Crowdfunding” link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, filers may construct XML submissions for CFPORTAL, CFPORTAL/A, and CFPORTAL-W by following the “EDGAR Form CFPORTAL XML Technical Specification” document located on the SEC's Public Web site (
Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is January 4, 2016. In accordance with the APA,
We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 24 (December 2015). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 35 (December 2015). Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 5 (September 2015). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
By the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of three specific perfluoroalkyl ethyl containing food-contact substances (FCSs) as oil and water repellants for paper and paperboard for use in contact with aqueous and fatty foods because new data are available as to the toxicity of substances structurally similar to these compounds that demonstrate there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm from the food-contact use of these FCSs. This action is in response to a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Center for Environmental Health, Clean Water Action, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Children's Environmental Health Network, Environmental Working Group, and Improving Kids' Environment.
This rule is effective January 4, 2016. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by February 3, 2016. See section VIII for further information on the filing of objections.
You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as follows:
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions in the following way:
•
• For written/paper objections submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your objection, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections 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
Paul Honigfort, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1206.
In a notice published in the
The petition proposed to amend § 176.170 (21 CFR 176.170) to no longer provide for the use of three perfluoroalkyl ethyl containing FCSs as oil and water repellants for paper and paperboard for use in contact with aqueous and fatty foods. The three FCSs which are the subjects of this petition are as follows:
1. Diethanolamine salts of mono- and bis (1
2. Pentanoic acid, 4,4-bis [(
3. Perfluoroalkyl substituted phosphate ester acids, ammonium salts formed by the reaction of 2,2-bis[([gamma], [omega]-perfluoro C4-20 alkylthio) methyl]-1,3-propanediol, polyphosphoric acid and ammonium hydroxide.
The three subject FCSs are regulated as food additives under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). Section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348) sets forth the statutory requirements for food additives. Section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) includes substances intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food among the substances defined as food additives, provided the intended use results or may reasonably be expected to result in it becoming a component of food and those uses were not sanctioned prior to 1958 or are not generally recognized as safe among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety.
Under section 402(a)(2)(c)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(c)(1)), food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it is or if it bears or contains any food additive that is unsafe within the meaning of section 409 of the FD&C Act. A food additive shall be deemed to be unsafe under section 409 of the FD&C Act, in relevant part, unless its use conforms to a food additive regulation or an effective food contact notification. Section 409(i) of the FD&C Act states that the procedure for amending or repealing a regulation shall conform to the procedure for the promulgation of such regulations. FDA's regulations specific to the administrative actions for food additives provide that the Commissioner, either on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, may propose the issuance of a regulation amending or repealing a regulation pertaining to a food additive (§ 171.130(a) (21 CFR 171.130(a)). These regulations further provide that any such petition must include an assertion of facts, supported by data, showing that new information exists with respect to the food additive or that new uses have been developed or old uses abandoned, that new data are available as to toxicity of the chemical, or that experience with the existing regulation or exemption may justify its amendment or appeal. New data must be furnished in the form specified in § 171.1 (21 CFR 171.1) and 21 CFR 171.100 for submitting petitions (see § 171.130(b)). Under these regulations, a petitioner may propose that we amend a food additive regulation if the petitioner can demonstrate that new data are available as to the toxicity of the food additive that may justify amendment of the food additive regulation.
Under section 409(c)(3) of the FD&C Act we will not establish a regulation for the use of a food additive if a fair evaluation of the data fails to establish that the proposed use of the food additive, under the conditions of use to be specified in the regulation, will be safe. Our regulations, at 21 CFR 170.3(h)(i), define safety as “a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.” In order for FDA to grant a petition that seeks an amendment to a food additive regulation based upon new data concerning the toxicity of the food additive, such data must be adequate for FDA to conclude that there is no longer
The petition asserts that publically available information on long-chain perfluorinated compounds as a chemical class, which has become available after the food contact use of the three FCSs was approved, demonstrates that there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm from the food contact use of the three FCSs as listed in § 176.170.
All three of the FCSs subject to the petition contain extended alkyl chains where all of the hydrogens are replaced by fluorine (hence the FCSs are “perfluorinated”). The toxicological profile of extended perfluorinated alkyl chains varies with chain length: On a general basis, those with extended perfluorinated alkyl chains greater than or equal to eight carbons in length demonstrate biopersistence in chronic feeding studies, while those with extended perfluorinated alkyl chains less than eight carbons in length do not (Ref. 1). Biopersistence is defined as persistence and accumulation of a material in a biological tissue due to preferential deposition of the material in the tissue combined with resistance of the material to removal from the tissue by natural clearance mechanisms (Ref. 2). As such, compounds containing extended perfluorinated alkyl chains are often classified as long- (
The petition cites a 2010 FDA comprehensive review memorandum on the available literature for long-chain PFCs (Ref. 3). This memorandum noted that available data on long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols, both of which are subsets of long-chain PFCs, demonstrate reproductive and developmental toxicity in animal models. The FDA memorandum determined that, based on structural similarity to long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols, and in the absence of contradictory data, data demonstrating reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols was applicable to long-chain PFCs on a general basis. The petition asserts that, as the three subject FCSs are long-chain PFCs, the concern for reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain PFCs as determined in FDA's 2010 comprehensive review memorandum is applicable to these three FCSs. The petition also provides the results of an updated comprehensive literature search, which the petition asserts reinforces the concern for reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain PFCs. The petition also asserts that the updated literature search did not discover any information which would contradict FDA's 2010 determination that data demonstrating reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols was applicable to long-chain PFCs on a general basis.
Upon review of the available information, FDA has confirmed our 2010 determination that data demonstrating reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols are applicable to long-chain PFCs on a general basis (Ref. 4). FDA's updated review noted that there are no available toxicological studies conducted with the three FCSs that address the endpoints of reproductive or developmental toxicity. As all three FCSs are long-chain PFCs, and in the absence of data specific to the three FCSs to address these endpoints, FDA utilized the available data demonstrating reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols to assess the safety of the approved food-contact use of the FCSs. FDA's updated review noted deficiencies in the available information used to determine migration of the FCSs into food as a result of their approved food-contact use (Ref. 5). For this reason FDA was unable to calculate consumer exposure to the FCSs in a manner which would allow a quantitative assessment of the safety of that exposure in the context of the available data demonstrating reproductive and developmental toxicity for long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols. However, FDA's review noted that available data demonstrate that long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids and fluorotelomer alcohols biopersist in animals and that this biopersistence also occurs in humans (Ref. 4). Although available migration information does not allow a quantitative assessment of the safety of exposure to these FCSs, the reproductive and development toxicity of the three FCSs can be qualitatively assessed in the context of biopersistence and the expectation that chronic dietary exposure to these FCSs would result in a systemic exposure to the FCSs or their metabolic by-products at levels higher than their daily dietary exposure (Ref. 4).
We received very few comments on the petition. These comments stated that the use of the three FCSs as listed in § 176.170 has been abandoned.
The basis for the action requested in the petition is that new data are available as to the toxicity of substances structurally similar to the subject FCSs that justify amending § 176.170. The petition is not based on abandonment of the approved food contact use of these three FCSs. We have made a determination that the information provided in the petition and other publicly available relevant data demonstrates that there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm for the food contact use of the three FCS.
We reviewed the data and information in the petition and other available relevant material to evaluate whether new data are available as to the toxicity of the subject FCSs that justify amendment of § 176.170. As a result of this review, we concluded that data for subsets of long-chain PFCs (demonstrating biopersistence and reproductive and developmental toxicity) are applicable to long-chain PFCs on a general basis and that this data raises significant questions as to the safety of the authorized uses of the three FCSs subject to the petition (Ref. 4). We also concluded that there is a lack of data specific to the three subject FCSs subject to the petition to address these questions (Ref. 4). For these reasons, in the absence of data specific to the three FCSs to address reproductive and developmental toxicity, adequate migration data to determine dietary exposure to the FCSs from the food-contact use, and sufficient data to account for a consumer's systemic exposure resulting from chronic dietary exposure to these FCSs, we conclude that there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm for the food contact use of these FCSs. Therefore, we are amending part 176 as set forth in this document. Upon the effective date (see
In accordance with § 171.1(h), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will
We have considered the environmental effects of this rule. As stated in the March 16, 2015,
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see
Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. Rice, P.A. “C6-Perfluorinated Compounds: The New Greaseproofing Agents in Food Packaging,”
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer,
3. FDA Memorandum from P. Rice to P. Honigfort, September 30, 2010.
4. FDA Memorandum from P. Rice to P. Honigfort, July 27, 2015.
5. FDA Memorandum from J. Cooper to P. Honigfort, July 23, 2015.
Food additives, Food packaging.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and re-delegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 176 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 346, 348, 379e.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG)(Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS ZUMWALT (DDG 1000) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective January 4, 2016 and is applicable beginning November 18, 2015.
Commander Theron R. Korsak, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS ZUMWALT (DDG 1000) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2 (a)(i), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light at a height not less than 6 meters above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 2(g) pertaining to the placement of sidelights above the hull of the vessel; Annex I, paragraph 2(i)(iii), pertaining to the equally spaced vertical separation of three task lights; and Annex I, paragraph 2(k) as described in Rule 30 (a)(i), pertaining to the vertical separation between anchor lights, and the location of the forward anchor light at a height of not less than 6 meters above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
15. * * *
19. * * *
22. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Highway 160 drawbridge across Three Mile Slough, mile 0.1, at Rio Vista, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to make necessary bridge maintenance repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to be secured in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 5, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. on April 10, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1098], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Highway 160 drawbridge, mile 0.1, over Three Mile Slough, at Rio Vista, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 12 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw opens on signal. Navigation on the waterway is commercial, search and rescue, law enforcement, and recreational.
The drawbridge will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 12:01 a.m. on January 5, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. on April 10, 2016, to allow the bridge owner to perform sand blasting and painting rehabilitation. A containment scaffolding system will be installed below low steel of the entire length of the bridge structure, reducing vertical clearance for navigation by not more than 4 feet, and will be lighted at night with red lights. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. The confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers can be used as an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform waterway users 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) extending 100-yards east and west of ICW Mile Marker 244.5 located at position 30°03′38″ N. 093°22′19″ W. (NAD 83) in Lake Charles, Louisiana. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards created by high power electrical line installation operations via helicopter over the Intracoastal Waterway. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on January 4, 2016 through 6 p.m. on January 14, 2016. This rule will be enforced when personnel and equipment are on scene and conducting working on electrical lines.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Walt Goggans, Marine Safety Unit Lake Charles, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 337-491-7883, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the hazards associated with electrical line installation operations over the Intracoastal Waterway. The Coast Guard was not notified of the impending electrical line installation by ENTERGY until approximately three weeks prior to the date of the planned installation. After review of the details, the Coast Guard determined action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the potential hazards created by the electrical line installation. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by January 4, 2016.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port, Port Arthur (COTP) has determined that the hazards associated with high power line installations beginning January 4, 2016
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on January 4, 2016 through 6 p.m. on January 14, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters, shoreline to shoreline, extending 100-yards to either side of helicopter high power cable installation operations and machinery being used by personnel to install the high power cables. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the electrical lines are being installed. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This rule will only be enforced for short periods when the channel is obstructed or cable installation operations over Intracoastal Waterway pose hazards to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessel to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on vessel owners or operators.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 10 days that will prohibit entry within 100-yards of vessels and machinery being used for high power cable installation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through must request permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or by telephone at (337) 912-0073.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the lawful orders or directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or the Captain of the Port's designated representative. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final regulatory determinations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing final regulatory determinations not to issue national primary drinking water regulations for four of the 116 contaminants listed on the Third Contaminant Candidate List. The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, requires the EPA to make regulatory determinations every five years on at least five unregulated contaminants. A regulatory determination is a decision about whether or not to begin the process to propose and promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for an unregulated contaminant. On October 20, 2014, the agency published its preliminary determinations not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos, terbufos sulfone and begin the process to regulate strontium. The agency requested public comment on the determinations, process, rationale and supporting technical information. The agency received comments from 14 individuals or organizations on the preliminary regulatory determinations. After careful review and consideration of the public comments, the agency is making a final determination not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos sulfone. The agency, however, is delaying the final regulatory determination on strontium in order to consider additional data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating strontium in drinking water.
In accordance with 40 CFR 23.7 for purposes of judicial review, the regulatory determinations in this document are issued as of January 4, 2016.
Zeno Bain, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water (Mailcode 4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5970; email address:
These final regulatory determinations will not impose any requirements on anyone. Instead, this action notifies interested parties of the EPA's final regulatory determinations for four contaminants and provides a summary of the major comments received on the October 20, 2014, preliminary determinations (USEPA, 2014c).
The purpose of this action is to present a summary of the EPA's findings related to the final regulatory determinations for four contaminants listed on the Third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) (USEPA, 2009). The four contaminants include: Dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos sulfone. Today's action briefly summarizes the statutory requirements for targeting drinking water contaminants for regulatory determination, provides an overview of the contaminants the agency considered for regulation and describes the approach used to make the final regulatory determinations. In addition, today's action summarizes the public comments received on the agency's preliminary determinations and the agency's responses to those comments, including the status of the EPA's evaluation of strontium.
The specific statutory requirements for the CCL and regulatory determinations can be found in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), section 1412(b)(1). The 1996 SDWA Amendments require the EPA to publish the CCL every five years. The CCL is a list of contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs), are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems (PWSs) and may require regulation under SDWA. The 1996 SDWA Amendments also direct the agency to determine whether to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL every five years. SDWA requires the agency to publish a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)
(a) The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
(b) The contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
(c) In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.
If the agency determines that all three of these statutory criteria are met, it makes a determination that a national primary drinking water regulation is needed. In that case, the agency has 24 months to publish a proposed MCLG and NPDWR. After the proposal, the agency has 18 months to publish a final MCLG and promulgate a final NPDWR (SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(E)).
On October 20, 2014, the EPA published preliminary regulatory determinations for five contaminants on the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) that had sufficient information to support a regulatory determination (USEPA, 2014c). The five contaminants are 1,3-dinitrobenzene, dimethoate, terbufos, terbufos sulfone and strontium. The agency is making final regulatory determinations not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos sulfone. The agency is not making a final regulatory determination for strontium at this time. The agency's decision to delay a final determination for strontium is based on public comments received and the plan to further evaluate scientific information that became available after publication of the preliminary regulatory determinations. The agency is currently conducting additional scientific analyses to determine if there is a need to develop a national drinking water regulation for strontium. For more information about the comments the agency received on strontium and the analyses that are underway, see section V.A of this notice.
Information on the five contaminants can be found in the Regulatory Determinations 3 Support Document (USEPA, 2014b). More information is available at the Water Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0155) and also on EPA's Regulatory Determination 3 Web site at
This section gives a summary of the regulatory determination process the agency followed to identify and evaluate contaminants for the Third Regulatory Determination. For more detailed information on the process and the analyses performed, please refer to the “Protocol for the Regulatory Determination 3” document (USEPA, 2014a) and the
The CCL 3 identified 116 contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national drinking water regulation, are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and may require
The three phases of the Third Regulatory Determination process are (1) the
The purpose of the first phase, the
During the second phase, the agency further evaluates each contaminant on the short list to identify those that have sufficient data (or are expected to have sufficient data within the timeframe allotted for the second phase) for the EPA to assess the three statutory criteria. As part of the second phase, the agency specifically focuses its efforts on identifying those contaminants or contaminant groups that are occurring or have substantial likelihood to occur at levels and frequencies of public health concern, based on the best available peer reviewed data. If the agency finds that sufficient data are not available or not likely to be available to evaluate the three statutory criteria during the first and second phases, then the contaminant is not considered a candidate for making a regulatory determination.
If sufficient data are available for a contaminant to characterize the potential health effects and known or likely occurrence in drinking water, the contaminant is evaluated against the three statutory criteria in the
Of the 12 contaminants that were evaluated in Phase 3, the agency did not make preliminary regulatory determinations for seven contaminants. The seven contaminants include chlorate and six nitrosamines. Chlorate and the six nitrosamines are disinfection byproducts, and the agency is further evaluating these contaminants as part of the regulatory review of existing Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct regulations, as announced in the Preliminary Regulatory Determination 3
After evaluating the five remaining CCL 3 contaminants (dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos, terbufos sulfone and strontium) against the three statutory criteria and considering other relevant information (such as level and frequency of occurrence, population exposed and information on sensitive populations and lifestages), the agency made preliminary regulatory determinations to regulate strontium and to not regulate the remaining four contaminants. These preliminary determinations, with their supporting analyses and documentation, were published in the
The EPA received comments from 14 organizations and individuals on the October 20, 2014,
After considering the public comments, the EPA is making final regulatory determinations not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos sulfone.
This notice provides a brief description of the agency findings on these contaminants. Details on the background, health and occurrence information and analyses used to evaluate and make final determinations for these contaminants can be found in the Regulatory Determinations 3 Support Document (USEPA, 2015b) and the
For each contaminant, the agency evaluated the available human and toxicological data, derived a health reference level (HRL),
Dimethoate is an organophosphate pesticide, commonly used as an insecticide on field crops (
The agency is making a determination not to regulate dimethoate with an NPDWR. It does not occur at levels and frequencies of public health concern. As a result, the agency finds that an NPDWR does not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
The primary data for dimethoate are the 2008-2010 nationally representative drinking water monitoring data, generated through the EPA's Second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 2). Dimethoate was not detected in any of the 32,150 UCMR 2 samples collected by 4,140 PWSs (serving ~230 million people) at levels greater than the
Other supplementary sources of finished water data from the State of California, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) indicate that the occurrence of dimethoate in PWSs is likely to be low to non-existent. Dimethoate occurrence data for ambient water from the USGS and the Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Data System are consistent with those for finished water. These data sources are discussed in the October 2014
1,3-Dinitrobenzene is a nitro aromatic compound that is used as an industrial chemical and formed as a by-product in the manufacture of munitions, as well as in the production of other substances (HSDB, 2009). There are no known natural sources of 1,3-dinitrobenzene. 1,3-Dinitrobenzene appears to be moderately persistent in environmental media and moderately mobile in soil and water, although in soils with high clay content it will be less mobile (USEPA, 2015b).
The agency is making a determination not to regulate 1,3-dinitrobenzene with an NPDWR. It does not occur at levels and frequencies of public health concern. As a result, the agency finds that an NPDWR does not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
The primary data for 1,3-dinitrobenzene are the 2008-2010 nationally representative drinking water monitoring data generated through the EPA's UCMR 2 (USEPA, 2015c). UCMR 2 is the only dataset with finished water data for this contaminant. UCMR 2 collected 32,152 samples from 4,139 PWSs for 1,3-dinitrobenzene and it was not detected above the MRL (0.8 μg/L), which is only slightly higher than the HRL (0.7 μg/L). Based on the results of the UCMR 2 samples, the estimated population exposed to 1,3-dinitrobenzene at or above the MRL is 0%.
Findings from the available ambient water data for 1,3-dinitrobenzene are consistent with the results in finished water. Ambient water data in STORET included no measured results above 0.33 μg/L in 143 samples from 70 sites (USEPA, 2012). It should be noted that some occurrence above the HRL may have gone undetected since reporting levels are not documented. These data sources are discussed in the October 2014
Terbufos is a phosphorodithioate pesticide (
The agency is making determinations not to regulate terbufos and terbufos sulfone with NPDWRs. They do not occur at levels and frequencies of public health concern. As a result, the agency finds that an NPDWR does not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
The primary data for terbufos are from the First Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 1) screening survey (2001-2003) (USEPA, 2008). The UCMR 1 screening survey collected 2,301 finished water samples from 295 PWSs for terbufos and it was not detected at levels at or above the MRL (0.5 μg/L), which is slightly higher than the HRL (0.35 μg/L) (USEPA, 2008). Based on the results of the UCMR 1 screening survey, the estimated population exposed to terbufos at or above the MRL is 0%.
The primary data for terbufos sulfone are nationally representative finished water monitoring data generated through the EPA's UCMR 2 (2008-2010) (USEPA, 2015c). UCMR 2 collected 32,149 finished water samples from 4,140 PWSs (serving ~230 million people) for terbufos sulfone and it was detected in only one sample, at a concentration of 0.42 μg/L. The MRL is 0.4 μg/L, which is slightly higher than the HRL (0.35 μg/L) (USEPA, 2015c). Based on the results of the UCMR 2 samples, the estimated population exposed to terbufos sulfone at a level of public health concern (based on the HRL for terbufos) is 44,600 (0.02% of the population served by PWSs).
Finished water data for terbufos and terbufos sulfone from California, Iowa, USDA and USGS are consistent with the UCMR 1 and UCMR 2 data. Terbufos and (very limited) terbufos sulfone occurrence data for ambient water from the EPA, STORET and several USGS programs or studies are also consistent with those for finished water. These data sources are discussed in the October 2014
The agency received comments in support of the agency's preliminary determinations not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos sulfone. The agency did not receive any comments to the contrary.
Strontium is a naturally occurring element (atomic number 38) and a member of the alkaline earth metals (ANL, 2007). There are several radioactive strontium isotopes formed by nuclear fission of uranium or plutonium. Since drinking water contamination by radioactive isotopes, including beta particle emitters, is covered under the existing Radionuclides Rule, this section describes the stable
In October 2014, the agency made a preliminary determination to regulate strontium with an NPDWR after evaluating the available health, occurrence and other related information against the three SDWA statutory criteria. Specifically, EPA made a preliminary determination that (a) strontium may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, (b) it is known to occur or there is substantial likelihood that strontium will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern and (c) regulation of strontium with an NPDWR presents a meaningful opportunity to reduce health risks for persons served by PWSs. EPA describes the underlying science in support of these criteria in the
In the
After consideration of public comments on the preliminary regulatory determination for strontium (see Section V.B.), the agency is delaying the final determination for strontium in order to consider additional scientific data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating strontium in drinking water.
Some commenters supported the preliminary determination to regulate strontium. These commenters supported a regulation due to the adverse effect on bone growth and/or the potential for elevated levels of strontium in the environment as a result of spills and disposal of waste products related to gas production.
Many comments called upon the agency to delay the final determination, collect more data and perform additional analyses before making a final determination for strontium. Specifically, the comments were focused on the following areas: The relationship between occurrence and health risk, the RSC of strontium, the costs and benefits of a potential strontium regulation and the feasibility of treating strontium.
Three commenters questioned whether enough water systems show strontium at levels and frequency of concern that a meaningful reduction in health risk can be achieved through a national regulation. Two of these commenters suggested conducting an epidemiology study that evaluates whether adverse human health effects are occurring and at what drinking water concentrations (and frequency of occurrence) to determine whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction of a regulation.
Two commenters indicated the agency should quantify the RSC or provide stronger justification for using an RSC of 20%. One commenter stated the RSC has a significant impact on the reference dose. One commenter stated that defaults of 20% and 80% have utility in relatively simple circumstances where it is accepted that the drinking water component is either very small or large. The commenter indicated that it is essential to analyze and quantify the RSC when it is intermediate and there are data to perform a meaningful estimate. The commenter asserted that it is essential because the impact on the MCLG and ultimately the MCL and compliance costs can become significant.
Several commenters indicated concerns with the costs and benefits of a potential strontium regulation. One commenter urged the agency to update the current affordability standard under SDWA before promulgating any new NPDWRs in order to allow rural and small communities to utilize the most economical and safe treatment options. One commenter stated that the agency failed to estimate the social benefits and social costs in its analysis for the strontium determination, specifically the additional energy usage and its externalities. Several commenters compared the cost of a potential strontium regulation to that of the arsenic regulation, based on the percentage and type of systems with strontium occurrence at levels of concern.
Several commenters supported the agency's commitment to conducting more extensive treatment research prior to promulgating a regulation for strontium. Two commenters indicated that the treatment technology to remove strontium may remove beneficial alkaline earth metals, such as calcium, that partially counter the uptake of strontium.
Strontium is known to occur in food, ambient air and soil. While data on levels in those media and estimates of intake from those sources were limited when EPA made the preliminary determination to regulate strontium, the EPA is evaluating recent additions to the exposure database to determine if the agency can develop a data-derived RSC rather than using a default 20% RSC in the calculation of the HRL. In the absence of this type of relevant exposure information, the agency supports the use of the default RSC and may ultimately use the default 20% RSC in the final regulatory determination for strontium and for other compounds in the future. The agency selects the default RSCs for regulatory determinations based on the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (USEPA, 2000).
If the agency makes a final determination to regulate strontium, the EPA will conduct tests on treatment technologies for strontium prior to developing a regulation. The agency understands that strontium may co-occur with beneficial calcium in some drinking water systems and treatment technologies that remove strontium may also remove calcium. The agency is evaluating the effectiveness of treatment technologies under different water conditions, including calcium concentrations. The agency will continue to work with stakeholders in evaluating treatment technologies for strontium.
At this time, the agency does not plan to initiate any longer term health effect studies, including human epidemiological studies on the relationship of skeletal effects and strontium exposure levels through consumption of drinking water and foods. The agency will continue to evaluate new health studies related to strontium exposure, including any epidemiology studies. It should be noted that while the agency is not precluded from conducting epidemiological studies, the agency is not required to do so to support the decision to regulate a contaminant.
An evaluation of the costs and benefits of a potential strontium regulation is outside the scope of the regulatory determination process. If the agency decides to regulate strontium, as part of the regulation development process, the agency will conduct a health risk reduction and cost analysis, including an evaluation of the costs and benefits of regulating strontium.
Prior to making a final regulatory determination for strontium, the agency will consider additional data gathered and analyses completed after publication of the preliminary determination (for further information, see discussion in section V.B. of this notice). The agency published the Draft Contaminant Candidate List 4 (CCL 4) on February 4, 2015 (USEPA, 2015a) and will issue a Final CCL 4 after consideration of public comments received. The agency will evaluate and consider contaminants on the Final CCL 4 for the Fourth Regulatory Determination.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; annual adjustment of Atlantic bluefin tuna Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas; inseason quota transfer from the Reserve category to the Longline category.
NMFS is adjusting the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas for 2016, based on regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. NMFS also is transferring inseason 34 metric tons (mt) of BFT quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category. This action is based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments. The transfer to the Longline category is applied to eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category permitted vessels with Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) shares, and as a result of this transfer, current IBQ vessel accounts will be distributed 0.25 mt of IBQ allocation each.
Effective January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Sarah McLaughlin, Tom Warren, or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
In 2015, NMFS implemented a final rule that increased the U.S. BFT quota and subquotas per ICCAT Recommendation 14-05 (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015). As a result, based on the currently codified U.S. quota of 1,058.79 mt (not including the 25 mt allocated by ICCAT to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area), the baseline Purse Seine, Longline, and Reserve category quotas are codified as 184.3 mt, 148.3 mt, and 24.8 mt, respectively. See § 635.27(a).
Pursuant to § 635.27(a)(4), NMFS has determined the amount of quota available to individual Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category participants in 2016, based on their BFT catch (landings and dead discards) in 2015. Specifically, NMFS is making available to each Purse Seine category participant 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of the individual baseline quota allocations based on 2015 catch, as described in § 635.27(a)(4)(ii), and is reallocating the remainder to the Reserve category for 2016. NMFS has calculated the amounts of quota available to individual Purse Seine fishery participants based on their individual catch levels in 2015 and the codified process adopted in Amendment 7. Total Purse Seine category BFT catches were 38.8 mt (33.9 mt of landings and 4.9 mt of dead discards) in 2015. Consistent with § 635.27(a)(4)(v)(C), NMFS will notify Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine fishery participants of the amount of quota available for their use this year through the Individual Bluefin Quota electronic system established under § 635.15 and in writing.
Based on the procedures described above and by summing the individual available allocations, NMFS has determined the 2016 Purse Seine category quota available to Purse Seine fishery participants is 82.9 mt. Thus, the amount of Purse Seine category quota to be reallocated to the Reserve category is 101.4 mt. This reallocation would result in a 2016 Reserve category quota of 126.2 mt (24.8 mt + 101.4 mt). However, NMFS also is taking action, as described
NMFS anticipates that it will announce additional BFT quota adjustments during 2016. For example, when complete 2015 BFT catch information is available and finalized, NMFS may augment the Reserve further by carrying forward underharvest, if any, from 2015, consistent with ICCAT limits. Subsequent notices will be published in the
Under § 635.15(b)(5)(ii), as implemented through Amendment 7, additional IBQ may be allocated to eligible vessels with IBQ shares, after the initial annual allocations if the U.S. baseline quota increases as a result of an ICCAT recommendation or as a result of a transfer of quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category, pursuant to criteria for quota adjustments.
Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories, after considering determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8), which are: The usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock; the catches of the particular category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made; the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota to harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and overfishing; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of BFT; effects of catch rates in one area precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the category's quota; review of dealer reports, daily landing trends, and the availability of the BFT on the fishing grounds; optimizing fishing opportunity; accounting for dead discards, facilitating quota monitoring, supporting other fishing monitoring programs through quota allocations and/or generation of revenue; and support of research through quota allocations and/or generation of revenue.
NMFS has considered the determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments and their applicability to the Longline category fishery and have determined that a quota transfer is warranted, as explained below. Consistent with the criteria for quota adjustments, this transfer is intended to increase the amount of quota available to pelagic longline permitted vessels with IBQ, and therefore help vessel owners account for BFT landings and dead discards while fostering conditions in which permit holders become more willing to lease IBQ. As described below, the amount of quota available to individual pelagic longline vessels will be particularly important beginning in 2016. The revised Longline category quota would support the broader objectives of Amendment 7, which include reducing BFT interactions and dead discards while maintaining an economically viable swordfish and yellowfin tuna directed fishery.
Under Amendment 7, a vessel must have IBQ to account for its BFT landings and dead discards. If a vessel has insufficient IBQ to account for such landings and dead discards, it goes into “quota debt.” Starting in 2016, a Longline category permitted vessel will not be allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear if it has outstanding quota debt or does not have the minimum amount of quota to fish (
Approximately one-fifth of active pelagic longline vessels had outstanding quota debt late in 2015, and quota leasing among fishery participants was limited. NMFS believes the reason for the limited quota leasing was due to the leasing program being so new, and shareholders may have been unwilling to lease quota to other shareholders because they did not know if they would have sufficient quota to account for any BFT they may catch.
With respect to the effects of the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and overfishing and accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan, this action would be taken consistent with the previously implemented and analyzed quotas, and it is not expected to negatively impact stock health or otherwise affect the stock in ways not previously analyzed. The transfer of 34 mt of BFT quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category will result in an adjusted Longline quota of 182.3 mt, which remains within the ICCAT quota and is less than the historical average of landings and dead discards in the fishery (239 mt). This action is consistent with the rebuilding goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended because NMFS does not anticipate that the overall U.S. BFT quota will be exceeded.
Regarding the determination criteria “optimizing fishing opportunity,” the ability of pelagic longline vessel owners to account for BFT with allocated quota or lease IBQ at an affordable price is key to the success of the IBQ program. An inseason transfer of quota to the Longline category would facilitate accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP by optimizing fishing opportunity, contributing to full accounting for landings and dead discards, and reducing uncertainty in the fishery as a whole. Additional quota should reduce situations where fishing opportunity for target species is constrained by BFT quota debt or a low IBQ balance. It will also reduce vessel owner uncertainty about whether a vessel owner will have sufficient quota to account for BFT they may catch in the future. Without this inseason quota transfer, it is more likely that permit holders will have difficulty leasing quota to account for BFT catch or reduce quota debt, permit holders may have a reduced ability to make business plans for the future, and a higher number of permitted vessels may be prohibited from fishing during 2016 as a result of quota debt accrued during 2015.
Regarding the determination criteria about accounting for dead discards and variations in seasonal distribution or abundance, a quota transfer from the Reserve category to the Longline category would contribute toward full accounting of BFT catch by vessels that have quota debt (
Based on the considerations above, NMFS is transferring 34 mt of Reserve category quota, which is adjusted through the annual reallocation from the Purse Seine category to the Reserve category described above, to the Longline category. As a result of this quota transfer, the adjusted 2016 Reserve category quota is 92.2 mt, and the adjusted 2016 Longline category quota is 182.3 mt. This inseason quota transfer does not preclude future inseason quota transfers to any of the quota categories. As a result of this quota transfer, 0.25 mt (551 lb) of IBQ is being distributed to each of the 136 permit holders with IBQ shares, provided the permit is associated with a vessel. For those permits that qualified for IBQ shares and are not associated with a vessel at the time of the quota transfer, the IBQ will not be usable by the permit holder (
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries, including the pelagic longline fishery, closely through the mandatory landings and catch reports. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Pelagic longline vessels are required to report BFT catch through Vessel Monitoring System, as well as through the online IBQ system.
Longline category permit holders are reminded that all BFT discarded dead must be reported through the Vessel Monitoring System, and accounted for in the on-line IBQ system, consistent with requirements at § 635.15(a).
If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, the transfer from the Reserve category to the Longline category for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason adjustments to quotas and other aspects of BFT fishery management, to respond to the diverse range of factors which may affect BFT fisheries, including ecological (
NMFS has determined that adjustments to the Reserve and Longline category BFT quotas are warranted. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the Longline category quota from the initial level would result in minimal risks of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide the flexibility to provide additional quota to the Longline category in order to optimize fishing opportunity, account for dead discards, and accomplish the objectives of the fishery management plan. A quota transfer effective in early January 2016 helps to address the diversity of the fishery with respect to the timing of fishing activities in different geographic areas. A quota transfer later in the year may disadvantage those fishing early in the year.
Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the quota transfer is impracticable, as NMFS needed to consider and respond to updated data and information from the 2015 fishery in deciding to transfer 34 mt of quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category. If NMFS were to offer a public comment period now, after having appropriately considered that data, it may unnecessarily preclude fishing opportunities for some vessel operators, particularly those that fish early in the fishing season.
Delays in adjusting the Reserve and Longline category quotas would adversely affect those Longline category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to reduce or resolve quota debt, lease quota to other vessels, as well as delay potential beneficial effects on the ability for vessel operators to make business plans for their future. NMFS is trying to balance providing opportunity to the pelagic longline fishery, with the reduction of BFT bycatch, and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under §§ 635.15(b)(5)(ii), 635.15(f), 635.27(a)(8) and (9), and 635.27(a)(4) and (a)(7), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of missing fasteners in certain locations of the fuselage during production. This proposed AD would require inspecting for missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners; and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage due to missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 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 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
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 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 2014-0197, dated September 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes. The MCAI states:
During inspection of various fuselage areas on some A330-200F aeroplanes on the production line, prior to delivery, some fasteners were found missing.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this condition, Airbus issued several Service Bulletins (SB), providing inspection and modification instructions, as applicable.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires detailed inspections of the affected areas and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions.
Corrective actions include replacing any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners, and repair of any discrepancy (deformation or cracking of the fastener rows) of the affected fuselage frame areas. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3202, dated May 6, 2014 (Inspections).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3212, dated May 6, 2014 (Inspections).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3213, dated May 6, 2014 (Inspections).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3214, dated May 6, 2014 (Inspections).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3216, dated May 6, 2014 (Modification).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3217, dated May 6, 2014 (Modification).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3218, dated May 6, 2014 (Modification).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3219, dated May 6, 2014 (Modification).
The service information describes procedures for inspecting for missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners; and corrective actions if necessary. The service information also describes procedures for modification of certain sections of the fuselage. 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 these same type designs.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures and tests identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests 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 alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic inspection requirements of this proposed AD, and 1 work-hour per product to report inspection findings. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,805, or $935 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary modification would take about 40 work-hours and require parts costing $210, for a cost of $3,610 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 18, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, certificated in any category; manufacturer serial numbers 1004, 1032, 1051, 1062, 1070, 1092, 1115, 1136, 1148, 1164, 1175, 1180, 1320, 1332, 1344, 1350, 1368, 1380, 1386, 1406, 1414, 1418, and 1428.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of missing fasteners in certain locations of the fuselage during production. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage due to missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 72 months since first flight of the airplane: Do a detailed inspection of all applicable fuselage zones for missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3202, dated May 6, 2014.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3212, dated May 6, 2014.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3213, dated May 6, 2014.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3214, dated May 6, 2014.
If any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed fasteners are found during the detailed inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do a detailed inspection for discrepancies (deformation or cracking) of the adjacent fastener rows of the applicable fuselage zones, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) If no discrepancy is found, before further flight, modify the affected fuselage zone, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3216, dated May 6, 2014.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3217, dated May 6, 2014.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3218, dated May 6, 2014.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3219, dated May 6, 2014.
(2) If any discrepancy 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 Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Submit a report (including both positive and negative findings), using the applicable report sheet attached to the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD; of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Submit the report to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, Attn: SDC32 Technical Data and Documentation Services; fax: (+33) 5 61 93 28 06; email:
(1) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0197, dated September 4, 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 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by multiple reports of un-commanded escape slide inflation. This proposed AD would require modifying the regulator valves of the forward entry door, forward service door, aft entry door, and aft service door, and as applicable, modifying the regulator valves of the mid entry door and mid service door. We are proposing this AD to prevent out-of-tolerance trigger mechanism components (sector and sear) in the regulator valves, which can produce insufficient trigger engagement and reduced pull force values, possibly leading to un-commanded deployment of the slide during normal airplane maintenance or operation, and could result in injury to passengers and crew, damage to equipment, and the slide becoming unusable in an emergency evacuation.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kimberly DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6495; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of two incidents of un-commanded escape slide inflation. In both cases, out-of-tolerance trigger mechanism components (sector and sear) were found in the regulator valves which produced insufficient trigger engagement and reduced pull force values. This condition, if not corrected, could result in possible un-commanded deployment of the slide during normal airplane maintenance or operation and could result in injury to passengers and crew, damage to equipment, and the slide becoming unusable in an emergency evacuation.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modifying the regulator valves of the forward entry door, forward service door, aft entry door, aft service door, mid entry door and mid service door. The modification includes replacing the existing trigger mechanism sector and sear of the regulator valve with new trigger mechanism sector and sear. 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 are proposing this AD 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.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as Required for Compliance (RC) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the following provisions apply: (1) 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, and an AMOC
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 302 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with 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:
(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 18, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of un-commanded escape slide inflation. We are issuing this AD to prevent out-of-tolerance trigger mechanism components (sector and sear) in the regulator valves, which can produce insufficient trigger engagement and reduced pull force values, possibly leading to un-commanded deployment of the slide during normal airplane maintenance or operation, and could result in injury to passengers and crew, damage to equipment, and the slide becoming unusable in an emergency evacuation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the regulator valves of the forward entry door, forward service door, aft entry door, and aft service door, and as applicable, modify the regulator valves of the mid entry door and mid service door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015.
This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0548, dated November 5, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair 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
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(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 Kimberly DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6495; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Technify Motors GmbH (type certificate previously held by Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH) TAE 125-02-99 and TAE 125-02-114 reciprocating engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs) on TAE 125-02 engines. This proposed AD would require removal of affected fuel feed pumps. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel feed pump, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Technify Motors GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D-09356 Sankt Egidien, Germany, phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-2912; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; 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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0189, dated September 21, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
In-flight shut down occurrences have been reported on aeroplanes equipped with TAE 125-02 engines. The initial results of the investigations showed that a defective fuel feed pump was the probable cause of the engine failure.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Technify Motors GmbH has issued Operation & Maintenance Manual, CD-135/CD-155, OM-02-02, Issue 4, Revision No. 5, dated September 18, 2015. The service information describes procedures for removing and replacing the fuel feed pump.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has 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 provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 190 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Pro-rated cost of life limit reduction would be about $160 per part. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $38,475.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 March 4, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all Technify Motors GmbH (type certificate previously held by Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH) TAE 125-02-99 and TAE 125-02-114 reciprocating engines with a fuel feed pump, part number (P/N) 05-7312-K0073xx, or P/N 05-7312-K0133xx, where “xx” can be any number, installed.
This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs) on TAE 125-02 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel feed pump, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Remove from service each affected fuel feed pump before it exceeds 600 operating hours (OH) time in service (TIS) or within 110 OH after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install onto any engine, any fuel feed pump, P/N 05-7312-K0073xx or P/N 05-7312-K0133xx, where “xx” can be any number, if the fuel feed pump has 600 hours or more TIS. If TIS of a fuel feed pump is unknown or has exceeded 600 hours TIS, then the fuel feed pump is not eligible for installation. Rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired fuel feed pumps and/or fuel feed pumps that lack a serial number, are not eligible for installation.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0189, dated September 21, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Technify Motors GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D-09356 Sankt Egidien, Germany; phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-2912; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of multiple cases of ram air turbine (RAT) blade damage.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 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 Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriquez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
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 AD 2015-0076, dated May 6, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
A few cases of Ram Air Turbine (RAT) blade damage have been reported during maintenance operations. This kind of damage is caused by an incorrect locking of RAT rotor, due to improper positioning of blades at beginning of retraction, and locking check during retraction, which likely occurs during stowage of the RAT, after its deployment for maintenance purposes.
This condition, if not corrected, could prevent RAT deployment in flight during an emergency, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) 7X-289, which provides instructions to smoothly deploy the RAT and install an improved placard to ensure proper RAT stowage/retraction after maintenance.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of the existing RAT placard with a new placard and RAT re-identification. This [EASA] AD also provides conditions for installation of a RAT on an aeroplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Dassault Aviation has issued Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-289, dated January 21, 2015. The service information describes procedures for deployment of the RAT, replacement of the RAT placard with a new RAT placard, and re-identification of the RAT. 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 design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 45 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 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 $121 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,745, or $461 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
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 18, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by reports of multiple cases of ram air turbine (RAT) blade damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent blade damage to the RAT which could prevent RAT deployment in flight during an emergency, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 28 months or during the next accomplishment of the RAT functional test, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, deploy the RAT, replace the RAT placard with a new RAT placard, and re-identify the RAT part number (P/N) 1705673A to a part number identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-289, dated January 21, 2015.
(1) Change P/N 1705673A to P/N 1705673B.
(2) Change P/N 1705673A to a part number that is approved as a replacement for P/N 1705673A and approved as part of the type design by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); after the issue date of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-289, dated January 21, 2015.
An airplane on which Dassault Aviation Modification M1428 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided no RAT P/N 1705673A has been installed on that airplane since first flight.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a RAT, part number 1705673A, on any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0076, dated May 6, 2015, 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 Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2E turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. 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 Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0213, dated October 16, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Fuel flow non-conformities were found during reception tests of ARRIEL 2E Hydraulic Mechanical Metering Unit (HMU). Investigation and instrumented tests revealed instabilities on the additional check valve. These instabilities lead to hydraulic pulses. All HMU installed on ARRIEL 2E and 2N engines could present these instabilities.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to life reduction of the delta pressure valve diaphragm, and consequently, an uncommanded engine power increase, or an uncommanded in flight shutdown, possibly resulting in an emergency landing.
This proposed AD applies to Arriel 2E engines only. There are no Arriel 2N engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2193, Version A, dated July 16, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for incorporating modification TU 193 and replacing the constant delta-P diaphragm of the fuel metering valve. 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 France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This NPRM would require removing the pre-TU 193 adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly and replacing it with a part that is eligible for installation. This NPRM would also require replacing the constant delta-P diaphragm of the fuel metering valve.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 12 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $13,400 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $162,840.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 March 4, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2E turboshaft engines that have a pre-TU 193 adjusted high-pressure/low-pressure (HP/LP) pump and metering valve assembly, installed.
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel flow non-conformities found during acceptance tests of Arriel 2E hydro-mechanical metering units. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the constant delta-pressure (delta-P) diaphragm of the fuel metering valve, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and damage to the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Prior to exceeding 880 operating hours since new on the adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly or within 50 operating hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later:
(i) remove from service the adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly and replace with a part that is eligible for installation, and
(ii) replace the constant delta-P diaphragm of the fuel metering valve.
(2) Reserved.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install into any engine any pre-TU 193 adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly, nor install onto any helicopter any engine that has a pre-TU 193 adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0213, dated October 16, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 2193, Version A, dated July 16, 2015, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that certain maintenance tasks for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) are inadequate. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for the HSTA. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct premature wear and cracking of the HSTA, which could result in failure of the HSTA and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 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
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, 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
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-30, dated September 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:
A revision has been made to the CL 604/605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) manual, to introduce new tasks for the HSTA. Failure to comply with the TLMC tasks could lead to an unsafe condition.
This [Canadian] AD is issued to ensure that premature wear and cracking of the affected components are detected and corrected.
The unsafe condition is premature wear and cracking of the HSTA, which could result in failure of the HSTA and consequent loss of control of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
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 design.
This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for the HSTA.
Bombardier Inc. has issued the following service information.
• For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Task 27-42-01-109, Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); and Task 27-42-01-111, Detailed Inspection of the Horizontal Trim Actuator (HSTA) Secondary Load Path Indicator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); of Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated July 11, 2014, of the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual.
• For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5701 through 5962 inclusive: Task 27-42-01-109, Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); and Task 27-42-01-111, Detailed Inspection of the Horizontal Trim Actuator (HSTA) Secondary Load Path Indicator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); of Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated July 11, 2014, of the Bombardier Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual.
The service information describes procedures for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for the HSTA. 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 affects 78 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. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,630, or $85 per product.
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
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 18, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5962 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a determination that certain maintenance tasks for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) are inadequate. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear and cracking of the HSTA, which could result in failure of the HSTA and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Task 27-42-01-109, Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); and Task 27-42-01-111, Detailed Inspection of the Horizontal Trim Actuator (HSTA) Secondary Load Path Indicator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); of the applicable document identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated July 11, 2014, of the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual.
(2) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5701 through 5962 inclusive: Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated July 11, 2014, of the Bombardier Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-30, dated September 5, 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 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-10 for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. AD 2011-17-10 currently requires inspecting for a by-pass wire between the housing of each in-tank fuel quantity indication (FQI) cable plug and the cable shield, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2011-17-10 also requires revising the airplane maintenance program. Since we issued AD 2011-17-10, revised service information has been issued to update the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) that address potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks. This proposed AD would require revising the airplane maintenance or
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
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 3, 2011, we issued AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), for all Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. AD 2011-17-10 requires inspecting for a by-pass wire between the housing of each in-tank FQI cable plug and the cable shield and corrective actions (installing a by-pass wire) if necessary. AD 2011-17-10 also requires revising the airplane maintenance program.
Since we issued AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), revised service information has been issued to update the critical CDCCLs that address potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0111, dated May 8, 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:
* * * [T]he FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.
The review conducted by Fokker Services on the F28 design, in response to these regulations, revealed that on certain aeroplanes, an interrupted shield contact may exist or develop between the housing of an in-tank Fuel Quantity Indication (FQI) cable plug and the cable shield of the shielded FQI system cables in the main and collector fuel tanks, which can, under certain conditions, form a spark gap.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may create an ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a wing fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address and correct this unsafe condition, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) SBF28-28-053 which provides instructions, for early production aeroplanes, for a one-time inspection to check for the presence of a by-pass wire between the housing of each in-tank FQI cable plug and the cable shield and, depending on findings, for the installation of a by-pass wire. In addition, SBF28-28-053 provides a Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) item to make certain that the by-pass wire remains installed on these aeroplanes.
On later production aeroplanes, an improved plug Part Number (P/N) 20P227-2 was introduced with a better shield connection to the housing of the plug. Therefore, SBF28-28-053 (original issue and Revision 1) also provided a CDCCL item to ensure that this type of plug remains installed on those aeroplanes.
EASA issued AD 2010-0217 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011)] to require accomplishment of the instructions related to the by-pass wire and implementation of the CDCCL items as specified in Fokker Services SBF28-28-053 Revision 1, as applicable to aeroplane s/n.
Since EASA AD 2010-0217 was issued, it was identified that P/N 20P227-2 and 20P228-1 plugs are also approved and can therefore be installed on the later production aeroplanes. Prompted by this finding, Fokker Services issued SBF28-28-055 to address the implementation of a CDCCL item to make certain that only approved plug types remain installed on the later production aeroplanes, while SBF28-28-053 Revision 2 was issued for early production aeroplanes to address the by-pass wire related actions only.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011-0184, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0217, which was superseded, to require implementation of the related CDCCL items as specified in Fokker Services SBF28-28-053 Revision 2, or SBF28-28-055, as applicable to aeroplane s/n.
More recently, Fokker Services published Revision 3 of SBF28-28-053, to eliminate the use of a heat gun in or near to the fuel tank, and prompted by a change to the definition of the related CDCCL item. Fokker Services also cancelled SBF28-28-055, due to the introduction of a revised definition of the CDCCL item that has been published in Fokker Services SBF28-28-050, Revision 2.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements related to SBF28-28-053 of EASA AD 2011-0184, which is superseded, but requires those actions to be accomplished in accordance with the instructions of Fokker Services SBF28-28-053, Revision 3 (R3).
All the actions related to SBF28-28-055, as previously required through paragraphs (5)
The CDCCL requirement in AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011) for Model F.28 Mark 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes is now addressed in other related rulemaking. Therefore this proposed AD does not include Model F.28 Mark 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes in the applicability.
This AD also removes airplanes having serial numbers 11993 and 19994 from the applicability because those airplanes were scrapped and removed from the type certificate data sheet.
The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. Such ignition sources, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 3, dated January 9, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting for a by-pass wire between the housing of each in-tank FQI cable plug and the cable shield, and installing a by-pass wire if necessary. The service information also describes CDCCL item 1.7 for fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wiring in wing tanks. 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 design.
This proposed AD would require implementation of certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by this AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. This proposed AD would merely require using the Accomplishment Instructions in the revised service information. The current costs associated with this proposed AD are repeated as follows for the convenience of affected operators:
The actions that are required by AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), will take about 6 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2011-17-10 is $510 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions required by AD 2011-17-10 will take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $308, for a cost of $903 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to revise the maintenance or inspection program in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $425, or $85 per product.
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 18, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers (S/Ns) 11003 through 11041 inclusive, and S/Ns 11991 and 11992.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by the issuance of revised service information to update the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) that address potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential ignition sources inside the fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), with revised service information. At a scheduled opening of the fuel tanks, but not later than 84 months after September 16, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-17-10), do a general visual inspection for the presence of a by-pass wire between the housing of each in-tank fuel quantity indication (FQI) cable plug and the cable shield, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2010, or Revision 3, dated January 9, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 3, dated January 9, 2014, may be used.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), with revised service information. If during the general visual inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, it is found that a by-pass wire is not installed: Before the next flight, install the by-pass wire between the housing of the in-tank FQI cable plug and the cable shield, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2010, or Revision 3, dated January 9, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 3, dated January 9, 2014, may be used.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (i) of AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, concurrently with paragraph (g) of this AD, revise the airplane maintenance program by incorporating CDCCL-1 specified in paragraph 1.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053 Revision 1, dated September 20, 2010.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (k) of AD 2011-17-10, Amendment 39-16774 (76 FR 50111, August 12, 2011), with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD: After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating CDCCL item 1.7 as specified in paragraph 1.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 3, dated January 9, 2014. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the applicable actions required by paragraphs (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28-28-053, Revision 2, dated June 22, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0111, dated May 8, 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).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-05-18 R1 for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. AD 2008-05-18 R1 currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Since we issued AD 2008-05-18 R1, revised service information has been issued to update the Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALIs) and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) that address fuel tank system ignition sources. This proposed AD would require a new maintenance or inspection program revision to incorporate the revised ALIs and CDCCLs. This proposed AD would add certain airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
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 October 26, 2009, we issued AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009) for certain Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. AD 2008-05-18 R1 requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.
Since we issued AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), revised service information has been issued to update the fuel ALIs and CDCCLs. The revised service information applies to all Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0029, dated February 24, 2015 (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.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:
* * * [T]he FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F27 design in response to these regulations identified a number of Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) items to prevent the development of unsafe conditions within the fuel system.
To introduce these Fuel ALI and CDCCL items, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) F27/28-070. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2006-0207, requiring the implementation of these Fuel ALI and CDCCL items. That [EASA] AD was later revised to make reference to SBF27-28-070R1 and to specify that the use of later SB revisions was acceptable.
In 2014, Fokker Services issued Revision 2 of SBF27-28-070 to update the Fuel ALI and CDCCL items and to consolidate Fuel ALI and CDCCL items contained in a number of other SBs. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0105, superseding AD 2006-0207R1 and requiring the implementation of the updated Fuel ALI and CDCCL items.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Fokker Services issued Revision 3 of SBF27-28-070, primarily to introduce 2 additional CDCCL items.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0105, which is superseded, and requires implementation of the updated Fuel ALI and CDCCL items.
More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF27.043#05.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. The service information describes tasks for revising the maintenance or inspection program to update the fuel ALIs and CDCCLs that address fuel tank system ignition sources. 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 design.
This proposed AD would require implementation of certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program, or before accomplishing the revision of the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, as specified in this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program, or ALS, has been revised as required by this AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions required by AD 2008-05-18 R1 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new 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 $1,360, or $85 per product.
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 18, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by the issuance of revised service information to update the Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALIs) and critical design configuration control
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), with revised table reference. For Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes, serial numbers 10102 through 10692 inclusive: Within 3 months after April 16, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-05-18, Amendment 39-15412 (73 FR 13071, March 12, 2008)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the limits (inspections, thresholds, and intervals) specified in Fokker 50/60 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-671, Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008; as applicable. For all tasks identified in Fokker 50/60 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-671, Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008; the initial compliance times are as specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable. The repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Fokker 50/60 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-671, Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008; as applicable, except as provided by paragraphs (i) and (n)(1) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), with no changes. For Model F.27 Mark 050, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes, serial numbers 10102 through 10692 inclusive: Within 3 months after April 16, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-05-18, Amendment 39-15412 (73 FR 13071, March 12, 2008)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCLs as defined in Fokker 50/60 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-671, Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008; as applicable.
This paragraph restates the exceptional short-term extensions provision specified in paragraph (f)(3) of AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), with no changes. Where Fokker 50/60 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-671, Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008; as applicable; allow for exceptional short-term extensions, an exception is acceptable to the FAA if it is approved by the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
This paragraph restates the requirement specified in paragraph (f)(4) of AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used, unless the inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (f)(5) of AD 2008-05-18 R1, Amendment 39-16083 (74 FR 57402, November 6, 2009), with no changes. Actions done before April 16, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-05-18, Amendment 39-15412 (73 FR 13071, March 12, 2008)), in accordance with Fokker 50/60 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-671, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27/28-070, dated June 30, 2006; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
For Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items and CDCCLs identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph ends the requirements specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that airplane. The initial compliance time for the Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items identified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014, is at the initial compliance time specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-28-070, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2014, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (l) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0029, dated February 24, 2015, 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
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to amend our regulations to incorporate changes made by the ABLE Act to section 224(a) of the Social Security Act. The ABLE Act amends section 224(a) by changing the age at which disability insurance benefits (DIB) are no longer subject to reduction (offset) based on receipt of workers' compensation or public disability benefits (WC/PDB), from age 65 to the day the individual attains full retirement age. This change will make our rules consistent with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the ABLE Act.
To ensure that we consider your comments, we must receive them by no later than February 3, 2016.
You may submit comments, by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2015-0018 so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Dean Dwight, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-7161. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We propose amending our regulations to incorporate changes made to section 224(a) of the Social Security Act by the ABLE Act
We propose amending section 404.408 of our rules to reflect the changes mandated by section 201 of the ABLE Act. We also propose to make a conforming change to section 404.401(a)(4) of our rules. We are not making any other changes to our rules.
Before the ABLE Act, WC/PDB offset ended at age 65. Under the ABLE Act, the WC/PDB offset will apply until a beneficiary attains full retirement age.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?
• Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rules easier to understand,
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these proposed rules do not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB did not review them.
We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Government employees; Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social security.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend subpart E of Part 404 of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Secs. 202, 203, 204(a) and (e), 205(a) and (c), 216(l), 222(c), 223(e), 224, 225, 702(a)(5), and 1129A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 403, 404(a) and (e), 405(a) and (c), 416(l), 422(c), 423(e), 424a, 425, 902(a)(5), and 1320a-8a); 48 U.S.C. 1801.
(a) * * *
(4) An individual under full retirement age (see § 404.409) is concurrently entitled to disability insurance benefits and to certain public disability benefits (see § 404.408);
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The individual has not attained full retirement age as defined in 20 CFR 404.409.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Improving Kids' Environment, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, and James Huff, proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to no longer authorize the use of seven listed synthetic flavoring food additives and to establish zero tolerances for the additives.
The food additive petition was filed on August 17, 2015. Submit either electronic or written comments by March 4, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential,
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at
•
Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1071.
Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 5A4810) submitted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Improving Kids' Environment, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, and James Huff, c/o Thomas Neltner, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009. The petition proposes to amend § 172.515 (21 CFR 172.515),
The seven food additives that are the subject of this petition are as follows:
• Benzophenone (also known as diphenyl ketone) (CAS No. 119-61-9);
• Ethyl acrylate (CAS No. 140-88-5);
• Eugenyl methyl ether (also known as 4-allylveratrole or methyl eugenol) (CAS No. 93-15-2);
• Myrcene (also known as 7-methyl-3-methylene-1,6-octadiene) (CAS No. 123-35-3);
• Pulegone (also known as
• Pyridine (CAS No. 110-86-1); and
• Styrene (CAS No. 100-42-5).
In accordance with the procedures for amending or revoking a food additive regulation in § 171.130 (21 CFR 171.130), the petition asks us to amend § 172.515 to no longer provide for the use of these seven food additives as synthetic flavoring substances. Specifically, the petitioners contend that new data establish that these substances are carcinogenic and are, therefore, not safe for use in food under the Delaney Clause (section 409(c)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act), which provides that no food additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal. The petitioners cite, as evidence, conclusions by the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The petitioners also include results from an observational epidemiology study in humans exposed to styrene and a number of long-term, animal feeding studies conducted on each of the seven additives to support their request. If we determine new data are available that establish these food additives induce cancer, then FDA will amend § 172.515 to no longer provide for their use by publishing an amendment to the regulation in the
Although the petition proposes to amend only § 172.515 to no longer provide for the use of these seven synthetic flavoring substances, our action in response to the petition could affect other regulations which provide specifically for the use of these additives. Specifically, benzophenone is also approved for use as an indirect food additive,
The petition also requests that FDA explicitly establish a zero tolerance for these seven substances in § 172.515. There is no statutory or regulatory provision for establishing a zero tolerance standard for flavoring food additives in § 172.515. We note, however, that 21 CFR part 189 permits FDA to prohibit by rulemaking the use of substances in human foods because of a determination that they present a potential risk to the public health or have not been shown by adequate scientific data to be safe for use in human foods. To the extent that a rulemaking under part 189 to prohibit the use of these seven substances in food satisfies the petitioner's request for a zero tolerance, we will consider, to the extent appropriate, whether such a rulemaking is necessary if this petition results in a regulation.
We also are reviewing the potential environmental impact of the petitioners' requested action. The petitioners have claimed a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
Department of State.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule implements Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 508) for the Department of State. Section 508 requires that Federal departments and agencies shall ensure accessibility by individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees, applicants for employment, or members of the public when developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology.
You may submit comments by March 4, 2016.
Interested parties may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments received outside of the comment period may be considered if feasible, but consideration cannot be assured. Those submitting comments to
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, 202-647-2318,
The purpose of this proposed rule is to add a new part 147, which implements Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) (“Section 508”), as it applies to programs and activities conducted by the Department of State (“the Department”). The title of this proposed rule reflects that it applies to Electronic and Information Technology (EIT). Some authorities cited in this rulemaking might use the term “Information and Communications Technology” or “ICT.” For the purposes of this rulemaking, the Department considers “EIT” and “ICT” to be interchangeable.
Proposed §§ 147.1 and 147.2 provide that these proposed rules are intended to implement Section 508, consistent with that statute and the regulations promulgated by the Access Board, at 36 CFR part 1194 (“Part 1194”). This proposed rule applies to all development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information technology by the Department of State. Section 147.3 provides the definitions of “The Department,” “Electronic and Information Technology (EIT)”, “Section 508,” “undue burden,” “Section 508 complaint”, “the Secretary,” and otherwise adopts the definitions in 36 CFR 1194.4.
Section 147.4 provides that the Department will ensure that its employees and applicants for employment are provided with adequate notice of the Department's obligations under Section 508, part 1194, and these rules.
Sections 147.5 and 147.6 generally reiterate the requirements of Section 508 regarding the prohibition against discrimination, and the requirement for ensuring that EIT is accessible (in accordance with part 1194), unless an undue burden would be imposed on the Department—in which case an alternative means of access must be provided.
Section 147.7 provides procedures for filing a complaint under Section 508. The procedures included therein are substantially the same procedures the Department has established in implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (22 CFR part 144). The relevant procedures are repeated in this rulemaking, for convenience. Any complaint must be filed with the Department's Office of Civil Rights, must be in writing, and submitted by fax, email, mail, or hand-delivery. The final, approved complaint form will be accessible and fillable and will be included for download on the following page:
An individual with a disability alleging a violation of Section 508 must file a complaint not later than 180 days after the date the complainant knew, or should have known, of the alleged violation of Section 508. Once the Department receives the complaint, it must conduct an investigation and, within 180 days of receiving the complaint, shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing findings of fact and conclusions of law; a description of a remedy for each violation found; and a notice of the right to appeal within 90 days of the complainant's receipt from the Department of the notice. The Department will notify the complainant
Section 147.8 provides that a decision from the Department on the merits of a complaint, or no notification in writing from the Department within 180 days of filing the complaint, will constitute exhaustion of the complainant's administrative remedies for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 701,
The Department of State is publishing this rulemaking as a proposed rule, with 60-day provision for public comment.
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for the purposes of Congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any year; and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Department of State certifies that this rulemaking will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
The Department of State has provided the rule to OMB for its review. The Department has also reviewed the proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, and finds that the benefits of the proposed rule (in providing mechanisms for individuals to submit complaints of discrimination) outweigh any costs to the public, which are minimal. The Department of State has also considered this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 13563, and affirms that this proposed regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationships between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12372, regarding intergovernmental consultation on federal programs and activities, does not apply to this regulation.
The information collection contained in this proposed rule is pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and, although not yet in use, has been assigned an OMB Control Number. As part of this rulemaking, the Department is seeking comment on the administrative burden associated with this collection of information. The Department has submitted an information collection request to OMB for review and approval under the PRA.
This information collection will provide a way for employees and members of the public to submit a complaint of discrimination under Section 508 and other federal statutes relating to discrimination, as described below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
• Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Date(s):
•
• You must include the DS form number (DS-4282) or information collection title in any correspondence. Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
•
(9)
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• how 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,
The form created by this information collection (DS-4282) will be used to present complaints of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or Sections 504 or 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 and 794d).
The form will be downloaded from
Civil rights, Communications equipment, Computer technology, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 147 is proposed to be added to subchapter O to read as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 29 U.S.C. 794, 794d; 36 CFR part 1194.
The purpose of this part is to implement section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires that when Federal departments and agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, they shall ensure accessibility by individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees, applicants for employment, or
This part applies to all development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information technology (EIT), as defined in § 147.3(b) and in 36 CFR 1194.4.
This part incorporates the definitions in 36 CFR 1194.4. In addition, as used in this part:
(1) The Secretary shall ensure that employees and applicants for employment are provided with adequate notice of the requirements of Section 508, the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards (36 CFR part 1194), and this part, as they relate to the programs or activities conducted by the Department.
(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the home page of the Department's public-facing Web site provides Department policy regarding accessibility of EIT in accordance with Section 508 and 36 CFR part 1194, as well as an email address for the public to ask questions or express concerns.
The Department must comply with EIT Standards and Guidelines when it develops, procures, maintains, or uses EIT. EIT must permit access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of information and data by federal employees and members of the public without disabilities. The Department must also ensure that individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from the Department have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public without disabilities, unless providing comparable access would impose an undue burden on the Department.
(a)
(1) Individuals with disabilities who are Department employees have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by
(2) Individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from the Department have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.
(b) In meeting its obligations under paragraph (a) of this section, the Department shall comply with the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards (
(c)
(d)
(a) An individual with a disability who alleges that Department EIT does not allow him or her to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to access and use by individuals without disabilities, or that the alternative means of access provided by the Department does not allow the individual to use the information and data, may file a complaint with the Department's Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR).
(b) Employees, applicants for employment, or members of the general public are encouraged to contact personnel in the Department office that uses or maintains a system that is believed not to be compliant with Section 508 or 36 CFR part 1194 to attempt to have their issues addressed. Nothing in this complaint process is intended to prevent Department personnel from addressing any alleged compliance issues when made aware of such requests directly or indirectly.
(c) A Section 508 complaint must be filed not later than 180 calendar days after the complainant knew, or should have known, of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the Department. A Section 508 complaint must be submitted in writing by fax, email, mail, or hand delivery to the S/OCR office, using the Form DS-4282, Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be downloaded at:
(d) Once a Section 508 complaint has been received, S/OCR will conduct an investigation into the allegation(s) and render a decision as to whether a Section 508 violation has occurred. Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint under this part, the Secretary shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing—
(1) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
(2) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
(3) A notice of the right to appeal.
(e) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 147.7(d). The Department may extend this time for good cause.
(f) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the Department.
(g) The Secretary shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the appeal. If the Secretary determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, the Secretary shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
(h) Individuals who submit a complaint must keep S/OCR updated at all times with current contact information, to include address, phone number, and working email address. Failure to do so may result in having the complaint closed prior to arriving at a decision on the merits of the complaint.
(i) A Department employee who receives a Section 508 complaint or a communication that raises an issue that might reasonably be considered a Section 508 complaint, should forward such communication(s) to S/OCR.
Either a decision by the Secretary on the merits of a complaint, or no notification in writing from the Secretary within 180 days of filing the complaint, will a constitute a final agency action and exhaustion of the complainant's administrative remedies for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 701,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This notice proposes to modify the existing procedures for the submission and processing of requests for confidential treatment. NHTSA is proposing that it will defer acting on requests for confidential treatment until it receives a FOIA request for the information, if the Agency decides that making a determination of confidentiality is necessary or if making a determination is in the public interest. In general, unless and until a determination is made, the information for which confidential treatment is requested will not be disclosed.
To ensure that requests for confidential treatment will provide an adequate basis for deferred determinations, this notice also proposes that submitters affirmatively specify whether the materials for which confidential treatment is sought were voluntarily submitted and provide an adequate basis for their claim of voluntariness. The proposal also contains provisions addressing agency disposition of inadequate or incomplete requests to ensure that submitters comply with the requirements when making requests for confidential treatment. Additionally, to facilitate communication with those making requests for confidential treatment, this notice proposes that an electronic mail address be provided with all requests.
NHTSA is also proposing to amend the regulation to provide submitters of confidential information with the option of submitting their requests for confidential treatment and the materials accompanying these requests electronically.
Comments on the proposal are due March 4, 2016. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments regarding the proposed information collection should be submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding methods and a copy should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Otto Matheke, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5263, facsimile (202) 366-3820, or Thomas Healy, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, (202) 366-7161, facsimile (202) 366-3820. The mailing address for both these officials is 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
This notice proposes to amend NHTSA's regulations governing requests for confidential treatment (49 CFR part 512) to allow the Agency to defer making determinations on requests for confidential treatment until a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or if the Agency decides that making a determination is necessary or is in the public interest so that NHTSA can more efficiently manage the increasing number of requests for confidential treatment. Generally, unless and until a determination is made, the information for which confidential treatment is requested will be kept confidential.
NHTSA is also proposing to amend part 512 to provide requestors with the option of submitting their requests for confidential treatment and the materials accompanying these requests electronically in an effort to more efficiently manage requests for confidential treatment received by the agency.
The number of requests for confidential treatment received by NHTSA has increased significantly since NHTSA first promulgated its confidentiality regulations in 1981. At that time the “Big Three” domestic automobile manufacturers still dominated the U.S. market. The U.S. automobile market has since become more diverse because of new entries from Asia, a significant decline in the market share controlled by the “Big Three” and the corresponding expansion of market share by other companies, including “foreign” manufacturers, many of whom now have U.S. production facilities. Not surprisingly, as the market share of these companies increased, their interactions with the agency have increased as well. New agency programs, such as the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), have further increased the flow of data into NHTSA. More recently, the digitization of information, the widespread adoption of email, and the relative ease of storing, organizing and maintaining electronic information, have often expanded the volume of data encompassed by requests for confidential treatment. By proposing to accept requests for confidential treatment electronically and to limit agency confidentiality determinations to instances where the confidential materials involved are the subject of a FOIA request, or where the Agency finds that a determination is necessary or is in the public interest, the Agency will be able to more efficiently manage the increasing number and size of requests for confidential treatment.
Requests for confidential treatment would be reviewed for completeness and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and, if necessary, denied. Ordinarily, complete and compliant requests would be substantively reviewed when and if a FOIA request seeking the information is received. However, to ensure that the scope of requests for confidential treatment is consistent with applicable law, the agency is also proposing that it may also make confidentiality determinations on its own initiative, even when it has not made a finding that a determination is necessary.
To ensure that persons requesting confidential treatment provide the agency with all the information that may be required to make deferred determinations of confidentiality, this notice also proposes that confidentiality requests must state whether the information at issue was voluntarily submitted or submitted in response to a compulsory process. In either case, this notice proposes that requests for confidential treatment contain information about the circumstances of the NHTSA inquiry resulting in the submission of the materials claimed as confidential. Additionally, to facilitate communication with those seeking confidential treatment, this notice proposes that requests for confidential treatment contain the electronic mail address of the person designated as the intended recipient of any NHTSA determination of confidentiality.
The Agency's regulations governing requests for confidential treatment are found in 49 CFR part 512. Part 512 directs that confidential materials and requests for confidential treatment must be submitted to NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel. 49 CFR 512.7. Currently, requests must be in writing and may not be submitted electronically.
First promulgated in 1981, part 512 established that NHTSA would make confidentiality determinations within 30 days for certain classes of information. 46 FR 2049 (January 8, 1981). These classes included: (1) Information relating to a rulemaking proceeding with an established public docket, (2) information relating to a petition proceeding with an established public docket, (3) information relating to a defect proceeding, (4) information relating to an enforcement proceeding involving alleged violations or a regulation or standard, or (5) information provided pursuant to a NHTSA reporting requirement.
The Agency noted that many commenters suggested that the issuance of confidentiality determinations in 30 days or less was inconsistent with the practices of other Federal agencies and would be unduly burdensome for the Agency. 46 FR. at 2050. NHTSA also observed that some Federal agencies had adopted a policy of immediate determination and that making immediate determinations would benefit both submitters and the public.
Responding to a petition for reconsideration filed by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (MVMA), NHTSA modified the 1981 final rule in a notice published on June 7, 1982. 47 FR 24587 (June 7, 1982). The Agency observed that the crux of the MVMA petition, as well as the comments generated during the rulemaking process, was that making immediate determinations of confidentiality was inconsistent with other government agency practices and would be overly burdensome on both submitters and NHTSA.
The 1982 response to the MVMA petition for reconsideration established that NHTSA would make confidentiality determinations at one of two junctures—when the Agency decided that it would do so or when NHTSA received a FOIA request for the information at issue. However, NHTSA promulgated a number of amendments to part 512 in 1989.
Beyond stating that the amendment would ensure efficient processing and proper identification of business information received by NHTSA, neither the NPRM (54 FR 28696 (July 7, 1989)) nor the preamble to the final rule (54 FR 48892 (November 28, 1989)) explained the rationale for adopting this “reasonable time” standard. NHTSA also did not offer any guidance on what time period would constitute a “reasonable time.”
NHTSA subsequently promulgated amendments to part 512 in July 2003, (68 FR 44209, (July 28, 2003)), October 2007 (72 FR 59434 (October 19, 2007)), and July 2009 (74 FR 37878 (July 29, 2009)). These amendments established class determinations for data submitted pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) requirements authorized by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, Public Law 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800, the “Cash for Clunkers” program authorized by the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (the CARS Act) (Pub. L. 111-32) and established procedures for submitting and marking electronic
Any proposal examining potential modifications to NHTSA's regulations governing the confidentiality of information submitted to the Agency must be consistent with statutory provisions directing the disposition of these materials. Because NHTSA is proposing to defer acting on requests for confidential treatment until a FOIA request is made, a particular concern is whether statues governing NHTSA's activities require disclosure of confidential information in the absence of a FOIA request.
When originally enacted in 1966, the Safety Act contained provisions directly addressing certain categories of confidential information submitted to NHTSA. The provision then codified at 15 U.S.C. 1402 imposed a duty on motor vehicle manufacturers to notify vehicle owners and NHTSA if the manufacturer had determined that a safety related defect existed in one of its products. Section 1402(d) required that these manufacturers provide NHTSA with all communications related to the defect that were sent to dealers and vehicle owners. This section further commanded that the Secretary “. . . shall disclose so much of the information contained in such notice . . .” or other information obtained from a manufacturer in relation to a failure to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that “. . . will assist in carrying out the purposes of this Chapter . . .”.
The authority to release information from defect-related manufacturer communications to dealers and customers was not, and is not, unlimited. 15 U.S.C. 1402(d) further stated that the Secretary “. . . shall not disclose any information which contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in [the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905)]” unless such disclosure “is necessary to carry out the purposes” of the Safety Act.
Congress amended the Safety Act in 1974 and, among other things, expanded the reporting requirements originally found in section 1402 by adding part B “Discovery, Notification and Remedy of Motor Vehicle Defects.”
The 1974 amendments also replaced the reporting requirements in 15 U.S.C. 1402 with specific provisions addressing the disclosure of cost information in the event a manufacturer opposes an action of the Secretary on the basis of increased cost. 15 U.S.C. 1402(a) directed that manufacturers submit such cost information for evaluation by the Secretary. 15 U.S.C. 1402(b)(1) and (b)(2) specified that such cost information, and the Secretary's evaluation of the cost data, shall be made available to the public unless the submitter satisfies the Secretary that the information contains a “trade secret or other confidential matter.” In that event, disclosure shall only be made in a manner preserving the confidentiality of the information (15 U.S.C. 1402(b)(1) and (2)). The provisions of section 1402 are now found in 49 U.S.C. 30167(c) as a result of the 1994 codification (without substantive change) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381
Other statutory provisions relating to various programs administered by NHTSA are also relevant to agency processing of confidential information. Section 32303(c) of chapter 323 (49 U.S.C. 32301 et. seq.) forbids the disclosure of personally identifying information collected from a vehicle insurer without the consent of that person when NHTSA has obtained crash or injury information from an insurance company. NHTSA is authorized to collect information pursuant to administration of the odometer fraud provisions of chapter 327
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) provisions of chapter 329 (49 U.S.C. 32901
With the exception of the EPA fuel economy calculations described in 49 U.S.C. 32904(c), which NHTSA is required to release, NHTSA's release of information obtained in furtherance of its varied missions is tempered by the requirement that the Agency not disclose information whose release would cause competitive harm or is subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). We note that is has long been established that the Trade Secrets Act is considered to be co-extensive with FOIA exemption 4.
The Agency is also not required to release confidential information under its own regulations. NHTSA promulgated regulations codifying the procedures employed in defect and non-compliance investigations in 1980. See 45 FR 10796 (February 19, 1980). The 1980 final rule created 49 CFR part 554. While Section 554.9 directs that files from closed or suspended investigations, including communications between the Agency and the manufacturer of the product in question, are to be made be publicly available, it does not require the disclosure of confidential information. Rather, information made public under section 554.9 may include confidential material if NHTSA determines such disclosure to be necessary to the investigation.
NHTSA has traditionally followed a practice of responding to all requests for confidential treatment as soon as is practicable after those requests have been filed. This practice, as well as the Agency's requirement that submitters provide formal requests for confidential treatment when submitting information to NHTSA, is rather unique. Most Federal agencies have adopted different approaches. Some agencies normally make determinations regarding the confidentiality of information only when they receive a FOIA request for the information.
The task of making substantive determinations on requests for confidential treatment has increased in complexity in recent years. Changes in the automotive industry, new agency programs and changes to existing agency programs have increased the volume of information being submitted to NHTSA. Furthermore, materials for which confidential treatment is sought more often include, images, databases, pictures, videos and other digital materials which has increased the amount of data being submitted to NHTSA. NHTSA is now receiving almost twice the number of requests for confidential treatment and requests for reconsideration than it did ten years ago. NHTSA receives between approximately 300 to 500 requests for confidential treatment in a given year.
The widespread use of electronic documents, data systems and information management and storage systems have enabled manufacturers to create and store more information and, when compelled by an agency request requiring them to produce it, to submit more data to NHTSA.
A 2003 study performed by the University of California at Berkeley concluded that the growth in electronic storage needs for data had doubled between 2000 and 2003.
As more data is produced by manufacturers and subsequently given to NHTSA in the course of investigations, the workload imposed by substantive confidentiality reviews of the data has grown and continues to grow. In today's world, a gigabyte of data is not considered to be a significant amount. However, if that gigabyte of data consists of documents without embedded photographs or videos, the printed versions of the documents would fill the bed of a pickup truck.
Although the size and scope of the Toyota unintended acceleration, the GM ignition switch, and Takata air bag rupture investigations were unusually large, large amounts of data are being submitted in routine defect matters. In one recent NHTSA investigation examining fuel pump failures in certain Volkswagen vehicles, Volkswagen submitted approximately 2.5 gigabytes of documents in response to formal agency Information Requests (IRs) during this investigation. Using the rule of thumb noted above, that one gigabyte of electronic documents would fill a pickup truck if reproduced on paper, substantive review of this data required that the Agency examine two and one-half truckloads of documents.
The explosive data growth resulting from the development and use of digital materials has created new industries
When materials are provided to NHTSA in response to a formal investigation request or similar compulsory inquiry, the proper legal standard for any grant of confidential treatment is whether release of the information at issue would be likely to cause the submitter to suffer substantial competitive harm or would impair the government's ability to obtain similar information in the future.
A claim for confidential treatment must be submitted to the Chief Counsel at an address specified in the regulations. 49 CFR 512.7. NHTSA is proposing to amend part 512 to provide submitters of confidential information with the option of submitting their requests for confidential treatment and the materials accompanying these requests electronically, by email, through a secure portal or through a similar secured site, rather than to an actual physical address used by the post office. The Agency is currently working to develop a system that would allow submission of materials electronically.
The Agency notes that the many of the requests for confidential treatment involve materials stored on electronic media in various file formats. These include discs, thumb drives, and portable external hard drives. The current regulation requires a complete copy of the submission, a redacted version, and either a second complete copy of the submission or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information the submitter deems important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of the claim. 49 CFR 512.5. As discussed in a final rule, 68 FR 44209, 44212 (July 28, 2003), the Chief Counsel was to distribute the complete copy and the public version of the material to the program office for its use, and will use the additional marked copy or set of material to evaluate the claim for confidential treatment. The rationale for the foregoing system was to provide the program office with the information necessary for program activity expeditiously and ensure that the program office is aware of which material is claimed to be confidential and which is not, and to provide the Chief Counsel with the information needed to consider the claim for confidential treatment.
The proposal to allow submission of materials electronically would eliminate the requirement for the additional marked copy or set for those submissions, as this information will be stored in an electronic repository or other system that would permit the applicable NHTSA program office as well as the Office of Chief Counsel to access it. Therefore, the Agency believes that the proposal to allow electronic submission will reduce inefficiencies.
NHTSA also believes that the proposal to allow electronic submissions could result in savings for requestors. Many requestors use commercial carriers to send the confidential information to NHTSA's physical address. If a requestor is permitted to submit the request and information electronically, it would serve to eliminate those delivery costs. Furthermore, requestors who submit electronically would not incur the additional expense associated with producing discs, thumb drives, and portable hard drives to NHTSA. Finally, those submitting confidential materials electronically would not be required to submit two copies of the confidential version of the information at issue because a single copy would be sufficient to address the agency's needs.
Adopting an electronic submission process also has the potential to improve transparency and facilitate public access to information that is not claimed as confidential by submitters. Such “public” data, if provided electronically, can be (after review by the Agency and redaction, if necessary) quickly and easily transferred to repositories that allow for public access. Adopting an electronic submission process would also allow NHTSA to more efficiently manage requests for confidential treatment as the agency will no longer have to use resources to process and store incoming hard copies of these requests.
NHTSA is proposing to amend part 512 to explicitly direct that confidentiality determinations will be made only at certain times: When the materials at issue are the subject of a FOIA request or, in the absence of such a FOIA request, if NHTSA determines it is necessary because it is required by statute, regulation or other requirement, or otherwise necessary, it determines that it is in the public interest, or to ensure that a person submitting requests for confidential treatment comply with part 512 and is not making claims that are unduly broad or not supported by applicable law. We believe that these proposed changes will allow NHTSA to more efficiently manage requests for confidential treatment and the materials with which these requests are associated. These proposed changes will also more align NHTSA's approach for handling requests for confidential treatment with those of other operating administrations within DOT.
It is the Agency's intent that it will ordinarily make substantive determinations of confidentiality only when a FOIA request seeking the information has been filed. Otherwise, NHTSA will make determinations in response to requests for confidential treatment when, at the Agency's discretion, a determination is either in the public interest or is otherwise necessary. In most cases, the Agency's exercise of discretion will result in no determination being issued unless and until a FOIA request for the information has been filed with the Agency. Although this proposal appears to not deviate from the existing requirements of part 512, NHTSA has long followed a practice of responding to every request for confidential treatment as soon as it is practicable to do so. As noted above, NHTSA now believes it should not continue to make determinations for each and every request for confidential treatment it receives.
Under the current regulations, information received by NHTSA, for
Because the Agency is proposing to follow a policy, in the absence of special circumstances, of making confidentiality determinations only when a FOIA request is filed, this notice proposes additional amendments aimed at ensuring that requests for confidential treatment are sufficiently complete to allow making a determination in the future, should the Agency act on the request. The Agency does intend to perform an initial review of all requests for confidential treatment to ensure completeness and compliance with the requirements of part 512 to ensure that the request is complete so it can be processed at a later date. This initial review will be limited to the sufficiency of incoming requests. In the event that a request is found to be insufficient, the agency is proposing to employ an abbreviated letter to deny the request and notify the recipient of the reason(s) for the denial. Furthermore, NHTSA is also proposing to amend part 512 to explicitly provide that the Agency may make confidentiality determinations in certain instances to ensure that manufacturers are not making overly broad requests.
49 CFR 512.17 currently provides that NHTSA will make confidentiality determinations at one of two junctures: Within 20 working days after a FOIA request is made for the information claimed to be confidential or within a reasonable period of time, if not requested under FOIA. Section 512.17(b), which governs when determinations are made in the absence of a FOIA request, states:
(b) When information claimed to be confidential is not requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the determination of confidentiality will be made within a reasonable period of time, at the discretion of the Chief Counsel.
(d) For information not requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the determination of confidentiality is made within a reasonable period of time at the discretion of the Chief Counsel.
As promulgated in 1989, section 512.6 provided that NHTSA would place submitter-redacted or “public” versions of materials submitted with a confidentiality request on public view (
As noted above, section 512.6 established different timing requirements for confidentiality determinations for different categories of materials prior to the 1989 amendments. For materials outside of five specific categories, section 512.6(d) declared that confidentiality determinations would be made within 10 days of a FOIA request seeking the information. 47 FR 24587, 24591-2 (June 7, 1982). As set forth in section 512.6(b), confidentiality determinations for five discrete categories of data would be made when required by the FOIA, NHTSA statues or regulations or when NHTSA determined disclosure was in the public interest.
The most identifiable constant in the evolution of NHTSA's approach to the timing of confidentiality determinations is that determinations must be made within a designated time period after a FOIA request. Beyond this, the record does not provide much insight into how the position taken in 1982 that NHTSA would make determinations at its own initiative became transformed into a 1989 final rule stating determinations would be made within a reasonable period of time at the discretion of the Chief Counsel. While the adoption of the latter phrase was characterized as not constituting a substantive change (54 FR 48894), the language employed appears to provide that the discretion exercised by NHTSA's Chief Counsel was limited to
The Agency's recent practice of making determinations on all requests for confidential treatment as soon as is practicable is at odds with the position stated in the 1982 final rule. The current language—determinations are made within a reasonable time at the Chief Counsel's discretion—infers that determinations will be made in all cases. If this was not intended, and an ambiguity exists, an interpretation that the Chief Counsel has the discretion to not make final confidentiality determinations is more consistent with the existing record.
NHTSA believes that the evolution of part 512 supports the conclusion that the Agency is not required to act on all requests for confidential treatment and is only compelled to do so by a FOIA request, when it determines it is necessary, or in the public interest.
NHTSA is therefore proposing to amend section 512.17 to explicitly provide that it will make confidentiality determinations only under certain conditions. One condition will be when NHTSA receives a FOIA request seeking information that may be within the scope of a request for confidential treatment. Other conditions under which NHTSA will make a confidentiality determination will exist if the Chief Counsel, at his discretion, determines that making a determination is necessary or is in the public interest.
As it did when issuing the 1982 final rule governing the timing of confidentiality determinations, NHTSA tentatively concludes that publicly releasing materials not claimed to be confidential is consistent with the requirement found in 49 CFR part 554.9 that non-confidential materials submitted by a manufacturer will be made available to the public during the course of an investigation.
Deferring determinations on requests for confidential treatment until NHTSA receives a FOIA request for the information, or decides that making a determination is required by statute or regulation or is in the public interest,
This notice also contains proposals to amend certain current requirements for requests for confidential treatment. In recognition of the increasing importance and use of electronic mail, NHTSA is proposing to amend section 512.8(f), which presently requires those requesting confidential treatment to provide the name, address and telephone number of the person to whom a determination should be sent, to require that those seeking confidential treatment also provide an electronic mail address for the designated recipient of NHTSA's determination of confidentiality. We are also proposing to amend section 512.8(a), which presently requires identification of the confidentiality standard applicable to the request, to more explicitly direct that persons requesting confidential treatment specify why the materials for which confidentiality is requested are being submitted to NHTSA and whether the submission is required by statute, regulation or other compulsory process. Among other things, the proposed amendment would require the identification of the NHTSA official requesting the information claimed as confidential, the date of the request, the subject matter of the request and the form in which the request was made. The proposal also amends section 512.8 to more explicitly require that requesters specify the factual basis for any claim that materials claimed as confidential are voluntarily submitted and, where applicable, to specify which materials are voluntarily submitted and which are not.
The applicable legal standards for granting confidential treatment differ significantly depending on whether the materials are voluntarily submitted or in response to a legal requirement.
It is NHTSA's experience that persons submitting requests for confidential treatment often resort to employment of a standard form letter that does not properly designate or identify data voluntarily submitted or submitted as a result of legal compulsion. These requests generally contend, in a conclusory fashion, materials are entitled to confidential treatment under both
NHTSA is also proposing to amend section 512.13(a) to remove language stating that improperly filed requests for confidential treatment may not necessarily result in a waiver of confidential treatment if the agency receives notice of the request or otherwise becomes aware of the claim before the material at issue is disclosed to the public.
We first note that the existing language is somewhat superfluous. Section 512.13(a) authorizes the Chief Counsel to make a determination that failing to follow the submission requirements in section 512.4 may waive claims for confidential treatment. Since NHTSA is not required to make a waiver determination when requests are not filed or are improperly filed, it may continue to exercise its discretion and not find that a waiver has occurred for any number of reasons. As these may include NHTSA's independent knowledge that the materials involved are confidential or NHTSA's receiving notice that a proper claim for confidential treatment will be asserted, the agency's tentative conclusion is that that the existing language is not necessary.
The agency is also concerned that retaining the existing language is undesirable. As noted above, incomplete, improperly prepared and untimely requests for confidential treatment create additional burdens for NHTSA. We see no reason to maintain language that could encourage a casual approach to submitting requests for confidential treatment, particularly since we are also proposing to defer making confidentiality determinations until receipt of a FOIA request or the determination is necessary or in the public interest. When making determinations is deferred, the passage of time necessarily compounds the impact of errors in requests and increases the difficulties inherent in resolving them. Accordingly, our proposal includes revising section 512.13(a) to strike language implying that failure to file a request for confidential treatment or filing one improperly will not result in a waiver of confidentiality.
NHTSA is proposing to amend part 512 to allow requests for confidential treatment and the accompanying materials to be submitted electronically. Currently, part 512 anticipates that materials will be submitted to a physical address. 49 CFR 512.7. NHTSA believes that providing the option for electronic submission will increase efficiencies, reduce burdens for the agency and submitters and facilitate more expeditious release of non-confidential information.
NHTSA is also proposing to amend 49 CFR 512.4 to clarify how requestors submitting requests for confidential treatment for materials submitted in compliance with 49 CFR part 537,
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the name of the passenger motor vehicle make, model, line, and model year for which a manufacturer is seeking an exemption from the theft prevention standard under 49 CFR part 543 will be presumed to be confidential until such time that the petition for exemption is granted or denied.
The agency notes that vehicle manufacturers routinely seek confidential treatment for this make, model, line and model year information. We have previously stated, when making determinations on requests for confidential treatment, that 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements related to the disposition of all 543 petitions. Under the foregoing section, the information published in the
We have also tentatively concluded that release of this information at the time NHTSA issues a determination in response to a petition filed under part 543 is not likely to result in substantial competitive harm to the petitioner. This tentative conclusion is based on two factors. The first is that manufacturers have a significant degree of latitude in when exemption petitions are filed and can therefore control when model information is released by NHTSA. The second is that now model name, line, model year and make information routinely enters the public domain, either by accident or design, before NHTSA grants or denies parts marking exemption petitions.
Section 543.5(b)(4) requires that petitions for exemption must be filed no later than eight months prior to start of production for the model line for which the exemption is sought. In turn, NHTSA is required under 49 CFR 543.7(c) to make a determination on the petition not later than 120 days after the petition is filed. Provided that a petition for exemption is filed not less than eight months prior to the start of production, a manufacturer is free to file that petition at any time of its own choosing. Moreover, a manufacturer filing a petition knows that NHTSA must act on it within 120 days after it is filed. Manufacturers can therefore both control and predict when NHTSA will release its decision in response to an exemption petition, particularly since the agency's practice has traditionally been to use to full 120 days allocated to the task.
NHTSA's experience in processing requests for confidential treatment for make, model name, line and model year information contained in parts marking exemption petitions strongly suggests that some or all of this information is often in the public domain when NHTSA acts on the exemption petition. We also note that in some instances the make, model name, line and model year information has been found to be publicly available when the petition for exemption and accompanying request for confidential treatment were submitted. In at least one instance, the “confidential” information at issue was “leaked” to members of the automotive press several months before the request for confidential treatment was made.
For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing that make, model name, line and model year information submitted in petitions for exemption under 49 CFR part 543 shall be presumed to be confidential up to the date that NHTSA acts on the exemption petition or until this information enters the public domain, whichever comes first. We request comments on this proposal.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563.
This action would amend part 512 to modify agency procedures for receiving and processing requests for confidential treatment. There are no new significant burdens on information submitters or related costs that would require the development of a full cost/benefit evaluation. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that this action would not have “federalism implications” because it would not have “substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,” as specified in section 1 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule generally would apply to private motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, entities that sell motor vehicles and equipment and motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, Executive Order 13132 is not implicated and consultation with State and local officials is not required.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) 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 burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows: This proposed rule would addresses the Agency's receipt and treatment of requests for confidential treatment and would modify procedures for all submitters with regard to confidentiality determinations. The rule would not have retroactive effect.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This proposal would make changes to the materials that persons requesting confidential treatment of documents submit to NHTSA to justify confidential treatment.
In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking comment on a revision of a currently approved collection.
Persons who submit information to the agency and seek to have the agency withhold some or all of that information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552, must provide the agency with sufficient support that justifies the confidential treatment of that information. In addition, a request for confidential treatment must be accompanied by: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a copy of the submission containing only those portions for which confidentiality is not sought with the confidential portions redacted; and (3) either a second complete copy of the submission or alternatively those portions of the submission that contain the information for which confidentiality is sought. Furthermore, the requestor must submit a completed certification as provided in 49 CFR part 512, Appendix A.
The proposed rule would amend Part 512 to require the identification of the NHTSA official requesting the information claimed as confidential, the date of the request, the subject matter of the request and the form in which the request was made. The proposal would also amend section 512.8 to more explicitly require that requesters specify the factual basis for any claim that materials claimed as confidential are voluntarily submitted and, where applicable, to specify which materials are voluntarily submitted and which are not.
NHTSA receives confidential information for use in its activities, which include investigations, rulemaking actions, program planning and management, and program evaluation. The information is needed to ensure the agency has sufficient relevant information for decision-making in connection with these activities. Some of this information is submitted voluntarily, as in rulemaking, and some is submitted in response to compulsory information requests, as in investigations.
There are thousands of potential submitters of claims for confidential treatment of information, including vehicle manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and registered importers. The vast majority of these requests, however, have come, and will continue to come, from large manufacturers. Based on our recent experience with submissions, we estimate that we will receive approximately 500 requests for confidential treatment of information annually. A vast majority of these requests come from a small number entities. Therefore some entities subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction will file multiple requests while a majority will file none at all.
To the extent that there is an “average” submission, preparation of a request for confidential treatment, including the review and marking of documents and writing a request letter, consumes 2-4 hours. In the case of submissions by large manufacturers, which often consist of hundreds of pages of information, on average, it would probably take about eight and half hours to prepare the submission. Some submissions, usually those related to major agency investigations, may require hundreds of hours of time for document review, marking, organization and preparation of request letters. On the other hand, the typical small business that submits a single blueprint should only need about five (5) minutes to fully comply with the regulation. We believe that 10 hours per request in reasonable estimate of the time it takes to submit response given that differences in amount of time it takes to prepare individual each request. We believe that the modifications to this collection will increase the burden of submitting a request for confidential treatment by 15 minutes or less. The total number of burden hours is estimated at 5000 hours (10 hours × 500 requests/year) for 49 CFR part 512. Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the information collection is accurate.
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
The agency recognizes that the collection of information contained in today's proposed rule may be subject to revision in response to public comments.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This proposed action does not meet either of these criteria.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.
Administrative procedure and practice, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
For reasons discussed in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 512 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322; 5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 30166, 49 U.S.C. 30167; 49 U.S.C. 32307; 49 U.S.C. 32505; 49 U.S.C. 32708; 49 U.S.C. 32910; 49 U.S.C. 33116; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(e) Any person submitting information pursuant to 49 CFR part 537 requesting that the information be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) shall comply with this Section as well as with § 537.5.
(a) Except as provided for in either paragrpah (c) or (d), a person must send the following in hard copy or electronic format to the Chief Counsel when making a claim for confidential treatment covering submitted material:
(d) A claim for confidential treatment submitted electronically in accordance with this part must include:
(1) A complete copy of the submission, and
(2) A copy of the submission containing only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed have been redacted.
(3) A copy of any special software required to review materials for which confidential treatment is requested and user instructions must also be provided.
(c) Submissions in electronic format accompanying a request for confidential treatment in hard copy or paper—(1) Persons submitting a claim for confidential treatment in hardcopy or on paper as specified in § 512.7(a) of this part may submit all or part of the information claimed as confidential in an electronic format. Except for early warning reporting data submitted to the agency under 49 CFR part 579, information submitted in an electronic format shall be submitted in a physical storage medium such as an optical disk, portable hard drive or similar device and shall be submitted with the hardcopy or paper request for confidential treatment. The exterior of the medium (
(d) Submissions in electronic format accompanying a request for confidential treatment submitted electronically—(1) Persons submitting a claim for confidential treatment electronically as specified in § 512.7(b) of this part shall mark the materials claimed to be confidential in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraphs d(2) and (3) of this section.
(2) Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in other than their original format must be marked “Confidential Business Information” or “Entire Page Confidential Business Information” at the top of each page. If only a portion of a page is claimed to be confidential, that portion shall be designated by brackets. Files submitted in their original format that cannot be marked as described above must, to the extent practicable, identify confidential information by alternative markings using existing attributes within the file or means that are accessible through use of the file's associated program. When alternative markings are used, such as font changes or symbols, the submitter must use one method consistently for electronic files of the same type within the same submission. The method used for such markings must be described in the request for confidentiality. Files and materials that cannot be marked internally, such as video clips or executable files or files provided in a format specifically requested by the agency, shall be renamed prior to submission so the words “Confidential Bus Info” appears in the file name or,
(3) Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in other than their original format must be marked with consecutive page numbers or sequential identifiers so that any page can be identified and located using the file name and page number. Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in their original format must, if practicable, be marked with consecutive page numbers or sequential identifiers so that any page can be identified and located using the file name and page number. Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in their original format that cannot be marked as described above must, to the extent practicable, identify the portions of the file that are claimed to be confidential through the use of existing indices or placeholders embedded within the file. If such indices or placeholders exist, the submitter's request for confidential treatment shall clearly identify them and the means for locating them within the file. If files submitted in their original format cannot be marked with page or sequence number designations and do not contain existing indices or placeholders for locating confidential information, then the portions of the files that are claimed to be confidential shall be described by other means in the request for confidential treatment. In all cases, submitters shall provide an electronic copy of their request for confidential treatment.
(4) Electronic media may be submitted only in commonly available and used formats.
(a) Claims for confidential treatment submitted in hardcopy or on paper must be submitted in accordance with the provisions of this regulation to the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building W41-326, Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Claims for confidential treatment submitted electronically must be submitted in accordance with the provisions of this regulation by the designated method or to the designated NHTSA system permitting electronic submission.
When requesting confidential treatment, the submitter shall:
(a) Explain why the information for which confidential treatment is being requested has been submitted to NHTSA, and specifically identify:
(1) Any request by the government for the information submitted, including the subject matter of the request, the form in which the request was made, the date of the request, and the name of any government official requesting the information, and
(2) Any statute, regulation, order, subpoena, information request or other compulsory process that requires the submission;
(b) Describe the information for which confidential treatment is being requested;
(c) Identify the confidentiality standard(s) under which the request for confidential treatment should be evaluated in accordance with § 512.15, and indicate whether the materials for which confidential treatment is sought were, either in whole or in part, voluntarily submitted or were required to be submitted by statute or regulation or other requirement. The request must also specify with sufficiency what information was submitted voluntarily and what information was required to be submitted;
(d) Justify the basis for the claim of confidentiality under the confidentiality standard(s) identified pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section by describing:
(1) Why the information qualifies as a trade secret, if the basis for confidentiality is that the information is a trade secret;
(2) What the harmful effects of disclosure would be and why the effects should be viewed as substantial, if the claim for confidentiality is based upon substantial competitive harm;
(3) What significant NHTSA interests will be impaired by disclosure of the information and why disclosure is likely to impair such interests, if the claim for confidentiality is based upon impairment to government interests;
(4) What measures have been taken by the submitter to ensure that the information is not customarily disclosed or otherwise made available to the public, if the basis for confidentiality is that the information is voluntarily submitted;
(5) The factual basis supporting any and all claims that any of the materials for which confidential treatment is sought were voluntarily submitted or were required to be submitted by any statute or regulation; and
(6) If the information is otherwise entitled to protection, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
(e) Indicate if any items of information fall within any of the class determinations included in Appendix B to this part;
(f) Indicate the time period during which confidential treatment is sought; and
(g) State the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of the person to whom NHTSA's response to any inquiries should be directed.
(a) If the submitter fails to comply with § 512.4 of this part at the time the information is submitted to NHTSA or does not request an extension of time under § 512.11, the claim for confidentiality may be waived. If the information is placed in a public docket or file, such placement is disclosure to the public within the meaning of this part and may preclude any claim for confidential treatment. The Chief Counsel may notify a submitter of information or, if applicable, a third party from whom the information was obtained, of inadequacies regarding a claim for confidential treatment and deny the request as described in § 512.18(b) or may allow the submitter additional time to supplement the claim, but has no obligation to provide either notice or additional time.
(b) When information claimed to be confidential is not requested under the Freedom of Information Act, but a determination is necessary because it is required by a statute, regulation or other requirement, the Chief Counsel will make a determination on the claim within in a reasonable period of time, at the discretion of the Chief Counsel.
(c) When information claimed to be confidential is not requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and a determination is not otherwise required by a statute, regulation or by other requirement, the Chief Counsel may make a determination on the claim when:
(1) The Chief Counsel, at his or her discretion, decides that making a determination of confidential treatment
(2) The Chief Counsel, at his or her discretion, decides that making a determination is otherwise necessary; or
(3) The Chief Counsel, at his or her discretion, decides that making such a determination is in the public interest.
The Chief Counsel has determined that the name of a line, make, model and the model year of a vehicle that is the subject of a petition filed under 49 CFR part 543, if released, is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the manufacturer submitting the information: The foregoing determination will remain effective until the information specified above enters the public domain or the agency issues a determination in response to the petition, whichever comes first.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this existing information collection. This collection is a renewal of a currently approved collection for reporting annual application and monthly claim data via the Child Nutrition Payment Center for the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Special Milk Program for schools and institutions administered by a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Regional Office Administered Program.
Written comments must be received on or before March 4, 2016.
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 that were 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 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to Steve Hortin, Branch Chief, Operational Support, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Steve Hortin at the address indicated above or by phone at 703-305-4375.
The Child Nutrition (CN) Payment Center is the secure online portal operated by FNS for use by a limited number of institutions and school food authorities (SFAs) within Virginia, Colorado, and U.S. Department of Defense school installations. Through this portal, these SFAs and institutions can submit Program applications and claims for meal reimbursement.
With the renewal of this information collection, the five forms are officially being removed and replaced by the electronic system that currently exists. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the application information are being incorporated into this information collection since it is part of the same ROAP system. This system fulfills the requirements set forth in NSLP, SBP and SMP regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR 210.8 and 220.11; and 215.10) to collect the meal and milk data for the schools and institutions that are directly administered by the ROAP. This information collection is required to administer and operate these programs in accordance with the NSLA. All of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget and are in force. This is a revision of the currently approved information collection.
Refer to the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Klamath National Forest is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to improve fire resiliency on National Forest System lands by reducing fuels and stand density. The project area includes about 6,270 acres of private land and 29,500 acres of National Forest System lands. Project treatments will be limited to National Forest System lands. The project is about 10 miles north of Fort Jones and one mile west of Yreka, in Siskiyou County, California.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by February 3, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be completed by April 2016, and the final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed by July 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Andrew Mueller, Interdisciplinary Team Lead by email at
The purpose of the project is to:
1. Reduce the threat of wildfire to communities in the wildland urban interface while moving toward a diverse fire-resilient ecosystem.
2. Reduce overstocked, drought-stressed and dying trees to promote forest health.
3. Enhance early seral foraging and winter range habitat for deer and wild turkeys; and improve long-term habitat for northern spotted owl.
4. Maintain or improve habitat for
5. Limit the discharge of sediment to streams from sediment legacy sites to improve water quality.
The proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need for the project. A total of 10,700 acres is being proposed for treatment within the 29,500-acre project area. Strategic actions within project boundary will treat about 250 acres of the 1,190-acre defense zone and 3,870 acres within the 12,350-acre threat zone around the community of Yreka, California. Proposed treatments also include about 1,450 acres of fuel breaks along strategic road systems and ridges; 4,160 acres of prescribed burning; 860 acres of mastication to enhance wildlife habitat while reducing hazardous fuels; 1,350 acres of thinning (without the removal of Forest products); and 2,880 acres of thinning (with removal of Forest products).
Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097.
The responsible official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. During the comment period, an open house will be held in conjunction with the Yreka Area Fire Safe Council at the Forest Headquarters, 1711 South Main Street in Yreka on Wednesday, January 13, 2016, from 5 to 7 p.m. This is an opportunity to share location-specific information about the project with the public.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. We are particularly interested in hearing about any potential issues, which are defined as points of discussion, dispute, or debate about the effects of the proposed action. Your participation will help the interdisciplinary team develop effective, issue-driven alternatives and mitigations to the proposed action as needed.
This project is subject to comment pursuant to 36 CFR 218, subpart B. Only those who submit timely project-specific written comments during a public comment period are eligible to file an objection. Individuals or representatives of an entity submitting comments must sign the comments or verify identity upon request. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection (40 CFR 1501.7
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, requesting to expand Subzone 78A—Site 1 at the facility of Nissan North America, Inc., located in Smyrna, Tennessee. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on December 23, 2015.
Subzone 78A was approved on April 2, 1982 (Board Order 190, 47 FR 16191, April 15, 1982) and expanded on March 18, 1993 (Board Order 632, 58 FR 18850, March 30, 1993). The subzone currently consists of two sites: Site 1 (1,004 acres) located at 983 Nissan Drive, Smyrna; and, Site 2 (958 acres) located at 520 Nissan Powertrain Drive, Decherd. (An application is currently pending with the FTZ Board to expand Site 1 of the subzone to include 22 additional acres adjacent to the site (B-77-2015)).
The applicant is requesting authority to further expand Site 1 of the subzone to include 77.03 additional acres adjacent to the present site. No authorization for additional production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 16, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 29, 2016.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857.
On November 17, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from Pakistan.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days of the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), if a petitioner makes a timely request for an extension, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), a petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reason for the request. The Department will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On December 18, 2015, the petitioners in this investigation, Bull Moose Tube Company, EXLTUBE, Wheatland Tube, and Western Tube & Conduit (collectively, Petitioners) submitted a timely request, pursuant to section 703(c)(l)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e), to postpone the preliminary determination.
The record does not present any compelling reasons to deny Petitioners' request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(l)(A) of the Act, the Department is hereby postponing the due date for the preliminary determination in this investigation to no later than 130 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated. As a result, the deadline for completion of the preliminary determination is now March 28, 2015.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Alexis Polovina or Ryan Mullen, 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) 482-3927 or (202) 482-5260, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance
Pursuant to section 733 (d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above,
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On December 2, 2015, and December 3, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), JSW and Uttam Galva requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for the respondents, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by the scope are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metal coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific period (
Steel products included in the scope in this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
• Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measure at least twice the thickness; and
• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant steel flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after January 2016, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
Opportunity To Request A Review: Not later than the last day of January 2016,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
Further, as explained in
Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Italy are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Julia Hancock or Susan Pulongbarit, 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) 482-1394 or (202) 482-4031, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from Italy. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or
Accordingly, because Arvedi is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department preliminarily calculated a company-specific rate which is not zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733 (d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above,
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of the publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the
On November 13, 2015, pursuant to sections 735(a)(2)(A) and 705(b) of the Act, Arvedi and Marcegaglia requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by the scope are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metal coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific period (
Steel products included in the scope in this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
• Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measure at least twice the thickness; and
• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant steel flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110,
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Taiwan are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Andrew Medley, Paul Stolz, or Shanah Lee, 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) 482-4987, (202) 482-4474, or (202) 482-6386, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
On October 14, 2015, the Department published the notice of postponement for the preliminary determination in this investigation in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
For this preliminary determination, we have calculated a zero dumping margin for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 733(b)(3) of the Act, we are disregarding these rates and
Consistent
Because the Department has not made an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan.
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our negative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by the scope are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metal coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific period (
Steel products included in the scope in this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
• Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measure at least twice the thickness; and
• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant steel flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in February 2016 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation,
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-resistant steel) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Nancy Decker or Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
In the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Baoshan) and Hebei Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Tangshan Branch) (Tangshan), mandatory respondents in this investigation, did not respond to our questionnaire and, thus, did demonstrate that they were entitled to separate rates. Accordingly, we consider Baoshan and Tangshan to be part of the PRC-Wide Entity. Furthermore, because we did not receive quantity and value questionnaire responses or separate rate applications from numerous companies, the PRC-wide entity also includes these non-responsive companies.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. On November 5, 2015, we preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist for imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC produced or exported by the PRC-wide entity (which, as noted above, includes Tangshan and Baoshan).
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
We normally adjust antidumping duty cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion CVD investigation, we preliminarily found that Yieh Phui did not receive export subsidies. The rate for all-others companies in the CVD case was based on Yieh Phui's rate, and thus the all-others companies did not receive an export subsidy rate.
Pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, we normally adjust preliminary cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, where appropriate. However, in this case we are not granting a domestic subsidy pass-through adjustment.
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On December 16, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd. requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV, the Department postpone the final determination and that
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by the scope are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metal coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific period (
Steel products included in the scope in this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to interstitial-free (IF)) steels and high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (terne plate), or both chromium and chromium oxides (tin free steel), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
• Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measure at least twice the thickness; and
• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant steel flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Elfi Blum or Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-2316, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
On October 14, 2015, the Department published the notice of postponement for the preliminary determination in this investigation in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices (“EP”) have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices (“CEP”) have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai) and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd./Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk/Union), that are above
The Department preliminarily determines that the following dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733 (d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above,
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On December 16, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), Dongkuk/Union requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by the scope are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metal coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific period (
Steel products included in the scope in this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
• Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measure at least twice the thickness; and
• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant steel flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3, Room 11836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Members of the public will not be able to dial in to this meeting.
The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Dr. Elizabeth Turner Acting Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Room 146 Gregg Hall, 35 Colovos Road, Durham, NH 03824. Email:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a joint webinar meeting of its Ad Hoc Trawl Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Policy Advisory Committee (GEMPAC) and Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Technical Advisory Committee (GEMTAC), which is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held January 20 and March 2, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until the earlier of 5 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) or when business for each day has been completed.
To attend the webinar, visit:
You may send an email to
Mr. Brett Wiedoff, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss draft regulations that would implement the Pacific Council's electronic monitoring policies for the limited entry groundfish midwater trawl whiting fishery, and the limited entry fixed gear fishery fishing under the non-trawl shorebased individual fishing quota program.
Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Friday, January 22, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton Baltimore-BWI Airport, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, Maryland, 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8400.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The MAFMC's Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee will meet to discuss the Council's Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment. The Committee will develop recommendations for the full Council to consider at their February 2016 meeting. This amendment will prohibit the development of new, or expansion of existing, directed fisheries on unmanaged forage species in Mid-Atlantic Federal waters until adequate scientific information is available to promote ecosystem sustainability. The Committee will consider advice from the Unmanaged Forage Fishery Management Action Team and recommendations from the Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel before developing recommendations for a draft list of unmanaged forage species to include in the amendment. The Committee will also discuss and may develop recommendations for a draft range of alternatives for analysis, a draft purpose and need statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and other aspects of the amendment. A detailed agenda will be posted to
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice; change in public meeting date and extension of comment period.
The comment period for the Notice of Intent to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and conduct a scoping meeting for the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project published in the
A public scoping meeting was originally scheduled for January 14, 2016, but will now be held on January 28, 2016 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. (PST).
The scoping meeting location is: The Marin Arts and Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Ross, CA 94957-9601.
Stephen M. Willis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Planning Branch, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco CA 94103-1398, (415) 503-6861,
None.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD; Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) propose to jointly prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that analyzes and discloses effects associated with actions to provide fish passage at the Intake Diversion Dam. The proposed Federal action is to improve passage for endangered pallid sturgeon and other native fish at Intake Diversion Dam in the lower Yellowstone River.
The Corps and Reclamation will serve as joint lead Federal agencies in the preparation of the Intake Diversion Dam Fish Passage EIS. The Corps will serve as administrative lead for National Environmental Policy Act compliance activities during preparation of the EIS. The EIS will include consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need of improving passage while continuing a viable and effective
Submit written comments on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS on or before February 18, 2016.
A public scoping meeting will be held on January 21, 2016, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., in Glendive, MT.
Send written scoping comments, requests to be added to the mailing list, or requests for sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired or other special assistance needs to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AA, 1616 Capitol Ave., Omaha, NE 68102; or email to
The scoping meeting will be located at Dawson County High School Auditorium, 900 N. Merrill Avenue, Glendive, MT 59330.
Ms. Tiffany Vanosdall, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha, NE 68102, or
The Corps and Reclamation are issuing this notice pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
Reclamation's Lower Yellowstone Project is located in eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Intake Diversion Dam is located approximately 70 miles upstream of the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers near Glendive, Montana. The Lower Yellowstone Project was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior on May 10, 1904. Construction of the Lower Yellowstone Project began in 1905 and included Intake Diversion Dam (also known as Yellowstone River Diversion Dam)—a 12-foot high wood and stone diversion dam that spans the Yellowstone River and diverts water into the Main Canal for irrigation. The Lower Yellowstone Project was authorized to provide a dependable water supply sufficient to irrigate approximately 52,000 acres of land on the benches above the west bank of the Yellowstone River. Water is also supplied to irrigate approximately 830 acres in the Intake Irrigation Project and 2,200 acres in the Savage Unit. Both of the smaller irrigation projects pump water from the Main Canal. The average annual volume of water diverted for these projects is 327,046 acre-feet.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) listed the pallid sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1990. The best available science suggests Intake Diversion Dam impedes upstream migration of pallid sturgeon and their access to spawning and larval drift habitats. The lower Yellowstone River is considered by the Service to provide one of the best opportunities for recovery of pallid sturgeon.
Section 7(a)(2) requires each Federal agency to consult on any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency to ensure it does not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Reclamation has been in formal consultation with the Service to identify potential conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to pallid sturgeon associated with continued operation of the Lower Yellowstone Project. The Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan specifically identifies providing passage at Intake Diversion Dam to protect and restore pallid sturgeon populations. By providing passage at Intake Diversion Dam, approximately 165 river miles of spawning and larval drift habitat would become accessible in the Yellowstone River.
Section 3109 of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorizes the Corps to use funding from the Missouri River Recovery and Mitigation Program to assist Reclamation in the design and construction of Reclamation's Lower Yellowstone Project at Intake, Montana for the purpose of ecosystem restoration. Planning and construction of the Intake Project is a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) for the Corps in the 2003 Missouri River Amended Biological Opinion (BiOp) as amended by letter exchange in 2009, 2010, and 2013. The Reclamation Act/Newlands Act of 1902 (Pub. L. 161) authorizes Reclamation to construct and maintain the facilities associated with the Lower Yellowstone Project, which includes actions or modifications necessary to comply with Federal law such as the ESA.
Reclamation initiated a collaborative effort with the Service; Corps; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and The Nature Conservancy through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on July 8, 2005. Reclamation coordinated a value planning study in August 2005 with representatives from parties signatory to the MOU and the Lower Yellowstone Project Irrigation Districts to explore and evaluate a broad range of alternatives for fish passage and entrainment reduction.
In 2010, Reclamation and the Corps authorized the construction of a rock ramp and new screened headworks with the completion of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. The construction of the new headworks is complete and began operation during the 2012 irrigation season. During the final design of the rock ramp, following the release of the 2010 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, important new information on the design, constructability, and sustainability of the proposed rock ramp surfaced along with new information regarding pallid sturgeon movement which led to a reevaluation of fish passage options.
In 2013, the Corps and Reclamation conducted a planning effort to examine new and previously considered alternatives. Following this effort, the Corps and Reclamation identified the bypass channel for detailed analysis which included a constraint related to Reclamation's obligation to deliver water necessary to continue a viable and effective operation of the Lower Yellowstone Project. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact selecting the bypass channel were completed in 2015. In response to concerns about the selected Bypass Channel Alternative, the Corps and Reclamation are proposing to prepare this EIS.
The Corps and Reclamation will use the scoping period to fully identify the range of potentially significant issues, actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS. This scoping period will ensure the public has sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Federal action and reasonable alternatives for fish passage at Intake Diversion Dam. Public comments are invited and encouraged to assist agencies in identifying the scope of potentially significant environmental, social, and economic issues relevant to the proposed Federal action and determining reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EIS. Current and past project information and analyses can be accessed at:
The Corps and Reclamation will host a public scoping meeting and are inviting agencies, tribes, non-
As required by CEQ's implementing regulations, the EIS will include consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need of improving pallid sturgeon passage while continuing a viable and effective operation of the Lower Yellowstone Project. The EIS will analyze and disclose environmental impacts associated with the proposed Federal action and alternatives together with engineering, operations and maintenance, social, and economic considerations. The public is invited and encouraged to identify issues and effects that should be addressed in the EIS, as well as reasonable alternatives to improve fish passage at the Intake Diversion Dam.
The public scoping meeting date or location may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances. If the meeting date or location is changed, the Corps and Reclamation will issue a press release and post it on the web at
The meeting facility is physically accessible to people with disabilities. People needing special assistance to attend and/or participate in the open house should contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AA, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha, NE 68102; or email
The Corps and Reclamation believe it is important to inform the public of the environmental review process. To assist the Corps and Reclamation in identifying and considering issues related to the proposed Federal action, comments made during formal scoping and later on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. Reviewers must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the Corps and Reclamation to the reviewer's position and contentions. It is very important that those interested in this proposed Federal action participate by the close of the scoping period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Corps and Reclamation at a time when they can meaningfully consider and respond to them.
If you wish to comment, you may mail or email your comments as indicated under the
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.354A.
The Secretary intends to use the existing slate of applicants developed for the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 to make new grant awards in FY 2016. The Secretary takes this action because a number of high-quality applications remain on the grant slate and available funding for the program in FY 2016 can support only a limited number of new awards.
Clifton Jones, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 4W244, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-205-2205 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We received a number of applications for grants under the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program in FY 2014, many of which received very high scores. We made two initial awards in FY 2014 and two additional awards in FY 2015. Because we received a large number of high-quality applications and had limited funds available for awards, many high scoring applications did not receive funding in FY 2014 or FY 2015.
Based on historical data, we believe that the funding available for this program in FY 2016
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Management, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary publishes a list of persons who may be named to serve on the Performance Review Board that oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals for Senior Executive Service members of the Department.
Title 5, U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the
Raquel Boone, Director, Executive Resources Division, Office of Human Resources, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 2C150, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4573. Telephone: (202) 453-6475.
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.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Sunbury Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by UGI Sunbury, LLC (Sunbury) in the above referenced docket. Sunbury requests authorization to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline facility in Snyder, Union, Northumberland, Montour and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania. The Project would provide 180,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day to the Hummel Station Generation Facility in Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and
Sunbury proposes to: Construct and operate a 34.4-mile-long pipeline from the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company LLC (Transco) and MARC I Pipeline operated by Central New York Oil & Gas Company, LLC (CNYOG), both in Lycoming County, to the proposed Hummel Station Generation Facility.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA 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. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this Project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before January 27, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket numbers (CP15-525-000) 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 may file your comments electronically using the
(2) You may also file your comments electronically using the
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
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 (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This notice establishes the agenda and topics for discussion at the technical conference to be held on January 28, 2016, to discuss issues related to supply chain risk management. The technical conference will start at 9:30 a.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) in the Commission Meeting Room at the Commission's Headquarters, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and FERC Commissioners may be in attendance. All interested parties are invited to attend, and registration is not required.
The topics and related questions to be discussed during this conference are provided as an attachment to this Notice. The purpose of the technical conference is to facilitate a structured dialogue on supply chain risk management issues identified by the Commission in the Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Standards Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) issued in this proceeding and raised in public comments to the NOPR. Prepared remarks will be presented by invited panelists.
This event will be webcast and transcribed. The free webcast allows listening only. Anyone with internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to the “FERC Calendar” at
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
There is no fee for attendance. However, members of the public are encouraged to preregister online at:
For more information about the technical conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, 202-502-8368,
In a July 16, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the above-captioned docket, the Commission proposed to direct the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to develop new or modified Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards to provide security controls relating to supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services. The Commission sought and received comments on this proposal, including: (1) The NOPR proposal to direct that NERC develop a Reliability Standard to address supply chain risk management; (2) the anticipated features of, and requirements that should be included in, such a standard; and (3) a reasonable timeframe for development of a standard. The purpose of this conference is to clarify issues, share information, and determine the proper response to address security control and supply chain risk management concerns.
The Commission staff seeks information about the need for a new or modified Reliability Standard to manage supply chain risks for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. Panelists are encouraged to address:
• Identify challenges faced in managing supply chain risk.
• Describe how the current CIP Standards provide supply chain risk management controls.
• Describe how the current CIP Standards incentivize or inhibit the introduction of more secure technology.
• Identify possible other approaches that the Commission can take to mitigate supply chain risks.
1. Nadya Bartol, Vice President, Industry Affairs and Cybersecurity Strategist, UTC
2. Jon Boyens, Project Manager, Information Communication Technology (ICT) Supply Chain Risk Management, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
3. John Galloway, Director, Cyber Security, ISO New England
4. John Goode, Chief Information Officer/Senior Vice President, Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)
5. Barry Lawson, Associate Director, Power Delivery & Reliability, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
6. Helen Nalley, Compliance Director, Southern Company
7. Jacob Olcott, Vice President of Business Development, Bitsight Tech
8. Marcus Sachs, Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
The Commission staff seeks information about the scope and implementation of a new or modified Standard to manage supply chain risks for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. Panelists are encouraged to address:
• Identify types of assets that could be better protected with a new or modified Standard.
• Identify supply chain processes that could be better protected by a Standard.
• Identify controls or modifications that could be included in the Standard.
• Identify existing mandatory or voluntary standards or security guidelines that could form the basis of the Standard.
• Address how the verification of supply chain risk mitigation could be measured, benchmarked and/or audited.
• Present and justify a reasonable timeframe for development and implementation of a Standard.
• Discuss whether a Standard could be a catalyst for technical innovation and market competition.
1. Michael Kuberski, Manager, Grid Protection and Automation, Pepco Holdings Inc. (PHI)
2. Jonathan Appelbaum, Director, NERC Compliance, The United Illuminating Company
3. Brent Castegnetto, Manager, Cyber Security Audits & Investigations, WECC
4. Art Conklin, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Information Security Research and Education, University of Houston
5. Edna Conway, Chief Security Officer, Value Chain Security, Cisco
6. Bryan Owen, Principal Cyber Security Manager, OSIsoft
7. Albert Ruocco, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, American Electric Power (AEP)
8. Doug Thomas, Vice President and Chief Information Officer, Ontario Independent Electricity System Operation (IESO)
The Commission staff seeks information about existing supply chain risk management efforts for information and communications technology and industrial control system hardware, software, and services in other critical infrastructure sectors and the government. Panelists are encouraged to address:
• Generally describe how registered entities and other organizations currently manage supply chain issues.
• Identify standards or guidelines that are used to establish supply chain risk management practices. Specifically, discuss experience under those standards or guidelines.
• Identify organizational roles involved in the development and implementation of supply chain risk management practices.
• Generally describe approaches for identifying, evaluating, mitigating, and monitoring supply chain risk.
• Generally discuss how supply chain risk is addressed in the contracting process with vendors and suppliers.
• Generally describe the capabilities that registered entities currently have to inspect third party information security practices.
• Generally describe the capabilities that registered entities currently have to negotiate for additional security in their hardware, software, and service contracts. Describe how this may vary based on the potential vendor or supplier and the type of service to be provided.
• Generally describe how vendors and suppliers are managing risk in their supply chain.
1. Douglas Bauder, Vice President, Operational Services, and Chief Procurement Officer, Southern California Edison
2. Andrew Bochman, Senior Cyber & Energy Security Strategist, INL/DOE
3. Dave Whitehead, Vice President of Research and Development, Schweitzer Engineering
4. Andrew Ginter, Vice President, Industrial Security, Waterfall Security Solutions
5. Steve Griffith, Industry Director, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
6. Maria Jenks, Vice President, Supply Chain, Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L)
7. Robert McClanahan, Vice President/Chief Information Officer, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC)
8. Thomas O'Brien, Chief Information Officer, PJM Interconnection, LLC
On December 28, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-19-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of ISO-New England, Inc. Participating Transmission Owners' Regional Network Service and Local Network Service formula rates.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-19-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Loudon Expansion Project, proposed by East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) in the above-referenced docket. East Tennessee requests authorization to construct, own, and operate a new pipeline, new mainline valve, and new meter station in Monroe and Loudon Counties, Tennessee and install a pressure regulator at an existing meter station in Loudon County. The Loudon Expansion Project would provide up to 40,000 Dekatherms per day of firm transportation service Tate & Lyle Americas Ingredients, LLC for its new natural gas fueled combined cycle electric power plant at its manufacturing facility in Loudon County.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Loudon Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Loudon Expansion Project includes the following facilities:
• 10.2 miles of new 12-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from East Tennessee's existing 3200 mainline in Monroe County, Tennessee to the Tate & Lyle in Loudon County, Tennessee;
• one 12-inch mainline valve, two 12-inch tee taps, above- and below-ground piping, and a pig launcher barrel in Monroe County;
• one new meter facility, above- and below-ground piping, flow measurement and control equipment, a filter/separator, a pig receiver barrel, aboveground valve operators for below ground valves, blowdowns, and a condensate tank in Loudon County; and
• a pressure regulator at existing Meter Station 59039 on its Loudon-Lenoir City Lateral Line 3218D-100 in Loudon County.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA 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. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before January 27, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-91-000) 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 also 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.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
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 (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that on November 30, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) filed in Docket No. CP16-37-000, and pursuant to Sections 7 (b) & (c) of the Natural Gas Act, Part 157 of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) and its blanket certificate authority granted in Docket No. CP83-4-000, a prior notice application requesting authorization to; (i) Construct and operate a new 4,140 hp compressor station to be known as Keelor Compressor Station in McKean County, Pennsylvania; (ii) perform modifications at Bowen Compressor Station in Elk County, Pennsylvania, including the abandonment of 650 ft. of pipe; and (iii) perform modifications at Roystone Compressor Station, in Warren County, Pennsylvania, including installation of 750 ft of 12-inch pipe. The project is estimated to cost $27.9 million.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to: Kenneth E. Webster, Attorney, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street Williamsville, New York, 14221-5887, at (716) 857-7067 or by email at
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
National Fuel seeks authorization of this proposed Project to; (1) Increased capacity on National Fuel's existing Line D system by 77,500 Dekatherm per day, by increasing the operating pressure of Line AM60 and Line D, in order to provide firm transportation service to the Erie and Warren, Pennsylvania markets area from TGP at Lamont and to ensure that all existing storage withdrawal obligations can reliably be met, this will be accomplished by the installation of three-1,380 hp compressor stations (4,140 total hp) two of the three new compressor units at Keelor compressor station will be used to withdraw gas from the Keelor Storage Field and deliver such gas into Line AM60 (which is referred to as Line D west of the Roystone Compressor Station), the third compressor unit will be used to increase the pressure of gas withdrawn from National Fuel's East Branch and Swede Hill Storage Fields (2) to allow National Fuel to flow increased receipts from Tennessee Gas Pipeline, LLC (TGP) at Lamont and/or gas from Line K South of Bowen compressor station, through the Bowen compressor station, into Line K north of Bowen compressor station, and ultimately to Line AM60 and Line D, at sufficient pressure to allow the incremental volumes subscribed for by the Project shippers to reach the Erie and Warren, Pennsylvania markets, (3) to allow National Fuel to flow increased receipts from TGP at Lamont and/or gas from Line K south of Bowen compressor station, through the Bowen compressor station, into Line K north of Bowen compressor station, and ultimately to Line AM60 and Line D, at sufficient pressure to allow the incremental volumes subscribed for by the Project shippers to reach the Erie and Warren, Pennsylvania markets. The purpose of the proposed Roystone compressor station modification is to allow gas withdrawn from East Branch and Swede Hill storage fields, and first compressed and dehydrated by the Roystone compressor station, to reach the proposed Keelor compressor station for further compression up to the increased system maximum operating pressure of Line D of 720 psig. The Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
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 28, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
In connection with this application, Royal Acquisition LLC, University City, Missouri, has applied to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Frontenac Bank, Earth City, Missouri.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paper Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404)639-7570 or send an email to
(Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network)—New—National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In January 2015, CDC launched a new phase of funding for its autism spectrum disorder (ASD) surveillance program through a new cooperative agreement: “Enhancing Public Health Surveillance of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Other Developmental Disabilities through the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network” under the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DD15-1501. Through this cooperative agreement, funding is provided to enhance tracking at eight existing sites and to launch two new sites. Awards were made to state/local health departments and/or their designated representatives, including Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Johns Hopkins University, Rutgers University, University of Arizona, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Vanderbilt University, and Washington University in St. Louis. Four sites received funding to carry out Component A, which focuses on surveillance of ASD and either cerebral palsy or intellectual disability among 8-year-olds. Six sites received funding to carry out both Component A as well as Component B, which focuses on surveillance of ASD among 4-year-olds. In addition to the sites funded under the cooperative agreement, CDC also administers a site in Atlanta, Georgia, commonly known as the Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program (MADDSP).
CDC seeks to request OMB approval to collect performance monitoring and program evaluation information from all sites participating in the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (including the site administered by CDC). Over the course of the four-year funding cycle, each site will provide feedback via site-specific interviews, a Checklist, Worksheets, and Performance Measures at six month and two-year intervals. The interviews will occur on pre-established individual site calls that CDC conducts monthly with each grantee. The Worksheets and Performance Measures will be submitted to CDC by completing a Microsoft Excel-based data collection tool and emailing the information to a designated CDC contact. By conducting brief telephone interviews and developing a user-friendly data collection tool in Microsoft Excel, CDC anticipates that the reporting and tracking burden for awardees will be reduced due to: (1) Use of pre-established meeting time to conduct interviews, (2) awardees' familiarity with the software, which reduces training burden; and (3) the compatibility of the templates with other record keeping processes that are already in place for many awardees. CDC staff and contractors will be responsible for converting each awardee's submissions into a secure Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for reporting and analysis. CDC anticipates that respondent burden will be slightly higher at the initial six-month submission and will also be slightly higher for sites completing Component A&B compared to just Component A.
The information to be collected will help CDC and awardees assure compliance with cooperative agreement requirements, support program evaluation efforts, and obtain information needed to respond to inquiries about program activities and program impact from Congress and other stakeholders.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is required as a condition of cooperative agreement funding. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated burden hours are 122.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by March 4, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The form CMS-360 is a survey tool used by the State Survey Agencies to record information in order to determine a provider's compliance with the CORF Conditions of Participation (CoPs) and to report this information to the Federal government. The form includes basic information on the CoP requirements, check boxes to indicate the level of compliance, and a section for recording notes. We have the responsibility and authority for certification decisions which are based on provider compliance with the CoPs and this form supports this process.
Administration for Children and Families; HHS.
Notice.
The requirement for grantees to report on performance is OMB grants policy. Specific citations are contained in 45 CFR part 75 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.
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) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Unique Device Identification: Convenience Kits; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” This proposed guidance document is intended to outline the Agency's current thinking that for purposes of Unique Device Identification (UDI) labeling and data submission requirements, the term “convenience kit” applies solely to two or more different medical devices packaged together for the convenience of the user, where they are intended to remain packaged together and not replaced, substituted, repackaged, sterilized, or otherwise processed or modified before the devices are used by an end user. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time. When finalized, this guidance document will constitute a change in policy.
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 of 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 April 4, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
UDI Regulatory Policy Support, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3303, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5995, email:
Section 226 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 and section 614 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to add and amend section 519(f) (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)), which directs FDA to publish regulations establishing a unique device identification system for medical devices. The UDI system final rule was published on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58786) (the UDI Rule).
The overarching objective of the UDI Rule, as required by section 519(f) of the FD&C Act, is to provide a system to adequately identify medical devices through distribution and use. We interpret this to mean that the form of a UDI should, in conformity with 21 CFR 801.40, be available to identify a device in both easily readable plain-text and in a form that can be entered into an electronic patient record or other computer system via an automated process when the device is used by an end user.
The term “convenience kit” is defined at 21 CFR 801.3 as “two or more different medical devices packaged together for the convenience of the user.” Under 21 CFR 801.30(a)(11), individual devices packaged within a convenience kit are excepted from the UDI labeling requirements, provided the UDI is on the label of the immediate container of the convenience kit. The preamble to the UDI Rule expressed our thinking at the time that medical procedure kits, including orthopedic procedure kits, are convenience kits.
Since the publication of the UDI Rule, we have determined that interpreting the term “convenience kit” at § 801.3 to include implantable devices and instruments that are provided by the labeler in sets or trays as non-sterile and repeatedly reconfigured and sterilized (or cleaned and sterilized) prior to use would be inconsistent with the purpose of the exceptions at § 801.30 and the UDI Rule generally. In this draft guidance, FDA proposes to interpret the term “convenience kit” at § 801.3 as applying solely to two or more different medical devices packaged together for the convenience of the user where they are intended to remain packaged together and not replaced, substituted, repackaged, sterilized, or otherwise processed or modified before the devices are used by an end user.
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 Agency's current thinking on Unique Device Identification for Convenience Kits. It does not establish any rights for any person is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This 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 part 801, subpart B have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0720.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 5, 2015, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by January 19, 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 consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 5, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC on December 28, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain computing or graphics systems, components thereof, and vehicles containing same. The complaint names as respondents Bayerische Motoren Werke AG of Germany; BMW of North America, LLC of Woodcliff Lake, NJ; BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC of Greer, SC; Fujitsu Ten Limited of Japan; Fujitsu Ten Corp. of America, Inc. of Novi, MI; Harman International Industries Incorporated of Stamford, CT; Harman Becker Automotive Systems, Inc. of Farmington Hills, MI; Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH of Germany; Honda Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan; Honda North America, Inc. of Torrance, CA; American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, CA; Honda Engineering North America, Inc. of Marysville, OH; Honda of America Mfg., Inc. of Marysville, OH; Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC of Lincoln, AL; Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC of Greensburg, IN; Honda R&D Americas, Inc. of Torrance, CA; NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, CA; Renesas Electronics Corporation of Japan; Renesas Electronics America, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA; Texas Instruments Incorporated of Dallas, TX; Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan; Toyota Motor North America, Inc. of New York, NY; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. of Torrance, CA; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Erlanger, KY; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, IN; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. of Georgetown, KY; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc. of Blue Springs, MS; Volkswagen AG of Germany; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. of Herndon, VA; Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC of Chattanooga, TN; Audi AG of Germany; and Audi of America, LLC of Herndon, VA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, issue permanent cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3109”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
Tuesday, January 12, 2016: 10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Libya.
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
January 4, 11, 18, 25, February 1, 8, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 4, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 11, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 18, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 25, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 1, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 8, 2016.
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
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
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for direct transfer of license; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of an application filed by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF) on July 28, 2015, as supplemented on September 22, 2015. The application seeks NRC approval of the direct transfer of Facility Operating License DPR-72 for Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, from Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., to DEF. The NRC is also considering amending the facility operating license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
Comments must be filed by February 3, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments,
John B. Hickman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3017, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0024 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
• 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-2011-0024 in the subject line of 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 submissions. 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 considering the issuance of an order under § 50.80 of title 10 of the
The DEF currently holds 98.3006 percent ownership interest in Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3. Following approval of the proposed direct transfer of control of the license, DEF would acquire the 1.6994 percent interest in the facility held by Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
No physical changes to Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the direct transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility, which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action, involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and intervention via electronic submission through the NRC's E-filing system. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C “Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,” of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's public Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file contentions after the deadline in 10 CFR 2.309(b) will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the new or amended filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1).
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by January 25, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in Section IV of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by March 4, 2016.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated July 28, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15216A123), as supplemented on September 22, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15265A590).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Construction permit application; docketing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that the second and final part of the application for a construction permit, submitted by Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is acceptable for docketing. NWMI proposes to build a medical radioisotope production facility located in Columbia, Missouri.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0235 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:
•
•
•
Michael Balazik, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-2856; email:
By letter dated July 20, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15210A114), NWMI filed with the NRC, pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and part 50 of title 10 of the
The NRC has completed its acceptance review of part two of NWMI's application for a construction permit for a production facility as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, “Definitions.” The NRC has determined that part two was submitted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5), completes the information required by 10 CFR 50.34(a), and is acceptable for docketing. NWMI's construction permit application, in its entirety, has been placed under Docket No. 50-609. Please reference this docket number in all future correspondence.
The NRC expects that NWMI will submit an application for fabricating low enriched uranium targets under 10 CFR part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Materials,” as stated in paragraph six (page 2) of NWMI's letter dated July 20, 2015.
The NRC's staff has started a review of the NWMI construction permit application. The NRC's staff will provide NWMI with a schedule that identifies significant milestones and the expected review completion date. The schedule will include provisions for the NRC to request additional information, if necessary.
A copy of the construction permit application will be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report consistent with 10 CFR 50.58, “Hearings and report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.”
In support of the review of the NWMI construction permit application, a hearing will be conducted by the Commission or a Board designated by the Chief of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel in accordance with procedures in 10 CFR part 2, “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure.” A future
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC will also prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. The environmental impact statement will evaluate the environmental impacts for construction, operation and decommissioning of NWMI's radioisotope production facility. This review will cover all activities at NWMI's radioisotope production facility, including those under 10 CFR parts 50 and 70.
The docketing of the application does not predict whether the NRC will grant or deny the requested construction permit. If the NRC finds that NWMI's construction permit application meets the applicable standards of the AEA and the NRC's regulations, and that required notifications to other agencies and bodies have been made, the NRC will issue a construction permit for a production facility under 10 CFR part 50, in the form and containing conditions and limitations that the NRC finds appropriate and necessary.
This notice only addresses the start of a review to determine whether the NRC will issue a construction permit for the proposed NWMI facility. In order to operate and produce radioisotopes in its facility, a separate application must be submitted by NWMI for the NRC's review and approval, and, if docketed, would be the subject of a separate FRN.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 183 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-67 and CP2016-82 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 183 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-67 and CP2016-82 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 176 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-54 and CP2016-69 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 176 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-54 and CP2016-69 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 41 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-73 and CP2016-88 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 41 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-73 and CP2016-88 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 179 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-63 and CP2016-78 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 179 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-63 and CP2016-78 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 26 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-56 and CP2016-71 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 26 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-56 and CP2016-71 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 185 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-69 and CP2016-84 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 185 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-69 and CP2016-84 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 178 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-60 and CP2016-75 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 178 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-60 and CP2016-75 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 27 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-59 and CP2016-74 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 27 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-59 and CP2016-74 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-58 and CP2016-73 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-58 and CP2016-73 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-62 and CP2016-77 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-62 and CP2016-77 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 180 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-64 and CP2016-79 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 180 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-64 and CP2016-79 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 182 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-68 and CP2016-83 to
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Christopher C. Mohr to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-68 and CP2016-83 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Christopher C. Mohr is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 186 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-71 and CP2016-86 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 186 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-71 and CP2016-86 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 184 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-66 and CP2016-81 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 184 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-66 and CP2016-81 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-70 and CP2016-85 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-70 and CP2016-85 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Mail Contract 174 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-52 and CP2016-67 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 174 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 18, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-52 and CP2016-67 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 18, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-55 and CP2016-70 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-55 and CP2016-70 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 175 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing,
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-53 and CP2016-68 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 175 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-53 and CP2016-68 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 181 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-65 and CP2016-80 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 181 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-65 and CP2016-80 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-72 and CP2016-87 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-72 and CP2016-87 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 6, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express Contract 31 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-61 and CP2016-76 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express Contract 31 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-61 and CP2016-76 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 177 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-57 and CP2016-72 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 177 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-57 and CP2016-72 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 5, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 24, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 24, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Maria W. Votsch, 202-268-6525.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 24, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Maria Votsch, 202-268-6525.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Maria W. Votsch, 202-268-6525.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Maria Votsch, 202-268-6525.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of USA Graphite, Inc. (“USGT
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 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 company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 30, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 13, 2016.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed).”
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange
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 increase the Options Surcharge for transactions in MNX and NDX from $0.20 to $0.25 per contract for all non-Customers (Professionals,
The Exchange believes that these surcharges will assist the Exchange in remaining competitive in these options by recouping certain fees.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 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 to increase the Options Surcharge for transactions in MNX and NDX from $0.20 to $0.25 per contract for all non-Customer market participants is reasonable because all non-Customer market participants will be assessed the same increased Options Surcharge of $0.25 per contract. Customers will continue not to be assessed an Options Surcharge. Customer liquidity benefits the Exchange in offering other market participants an opportunity to interact with this order flow on the Exchange. Also, the Options Surcharge remains competitive with fees at other options exchanges.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Options Surcharge for transactions in MNX and NDX from $0.20 to $0.25 per contract for all non-Customer market participants is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will continue to assess all non-Customer market participants a uniform Options Surcharge. Customers are not assessed an Options Surcharge. Customer order flow is unique because Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and 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. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for non-Customer market participants who trade these products to pay the Options Surcharge as the Exchange has entered into a licensing agreement to obtain intellectual property rights to list these products and seeks to recoup a portion of its costs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Options Surcharge for transactions in MNX and NDX from $0.20 to $0.25 per contract for all non-Customer market participants does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all non-Customer market participants will continue to be assessed a uniform Options Surcharge for transactions in MNX and NDX, in addition to other transaction fees. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and 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.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective 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 Changda International Holdings, Inc. (“CIHD
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 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 company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 29, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 12, 2016.
By the Commission.
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, AY, 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, BYX, and EDGA.
•
•
•
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 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,
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 EDGA, BYX, and BZX 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 EDGA, BYX or BYX 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 has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing a rule change to list and trade the shares of the Elkhorn S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Commodity ETF (the “Fund”) of Elkhorn ETF Trust (the “Trust”) under BATS Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”). The shares of the Fund are collectively referred to herein as (the “Shares”).
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 list and trade the Shares under BATS Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
Elkhorn Investments, LLC will be the investment adviser (the “Adviser”) to the Fund and will monitor the Fund's investment portfolio. It is currently anticipated that day-to-day portfolio management for the Fund will be provided by the Adviser. However, the Fund and the Adviser may contract with an investment sub-adviser (a “Sub-Adviser”) to provide day-to-day portfolio management for the Fund. ALPS Distributors, Inc. (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. The Fund will contract with unaffiliated third parties to provide administrative, custodial and transfer agency services to the Fund.
Rule 14.11(i)(7) provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's investment objective will be to provide total return which exceeds that of the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Index (the “Benchmark”)
The Fund will be an actively managed fund that seeks to achieve its investment objective by, under normal market conditions,
The Fund's Commodities investments, in part, will be comprised of exchange-traded futures contracts on commodities that comprise the Benchmark. Although the Fund, through the Subsidiary, will generally hold many of the futures contracts included in the Benchmark, the Fund and the Subsidiary will be actively managed and will not be obligated to invest in all of (or to limit investments solely to) such futures contracts. In addition, with respect to investments in exchange-traded futures contracts, the Fund and the Subsidiary will not be obligated to invest in the same amount or proportion as the Benchmark, or be obligated to track the performance of the Benchmark. There can be no assurance that the Fund's performance will exceed the performance of the Benchmark at any time. In addition to exchange-traded futures contracts, the Fund's Commodities investments will also be comprised of the following: Centrally cleared and non-centrally-cleared swaps on commodities, exchange-traded options on futures contracts that provide exposure to the investment returns of the commodities markets, and exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments, without investing directly in physical commodities.
The Fund will invest in Commodities through investments in the Subsidiary and will not invest directly in physical commodities. The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary may not exceed 25% of the Fund's total assets. In addition to Commodities, the Fund's assets will be invested in: (1) Short-term investment grade fixed income securities that include only the following instruments: U.S. government and agency securities,
The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary will be designed to help the Fund achieve exposure to commodity returns in a manner consistent with the federal tax requirements applicable to the Fund and other regulated investment companies.
The Fund intends to qualify for and to elect to be treated as a separate regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Subsidiary will generally seek to make investments in Commodities and its portfolio will be managed by the Adviser or a Sub-Adviser.
The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary is intended to provide the Fund with exposure to commodity markets within the limits of current federal income tax laws applicable to investment companies such as the Fund, which limit the ability of investment companies to invest directly in the derivative instruments. The Subsidiary will have the same investment objective as the Fund, but unlike the Fund, it may invest without limitation in Commodities. The Subsidiary's investments will provide the Fund with exposure to domestic and international markets.
The Benchmark is a version of the S&P GSCI Index that aims to mitigate the effects of “contango” (which means that futures contracts with distant delivery months are priced higher than those with nearer delivery months) on index performance. The S&P GSCI Index is a broad-based, production-weighted index that is designed to be representative of global commodity market performance and to reflect general levels of price movements and inflation in the world economy. The S&P GSCI Index consists of twenty-four commodity futures on physical commodities across five sectors: energy; agriculture; livestock; industrial metals; and precious metals. The following table describes each of the commodities underlying the futures contracts included in the Benchmark as of October 31, 2015. The table also provides each instrument's trading hours, exchange and ticker symbol. The table is subject to change (and the Subsidiary will not in all cases invest in the futures contracts included in the Benchmark).
As the U.S. and foreign exchanges noted above list additional contracts, as currently listed contracts on those exchanges gain sufficient liquidity, or as other exchanges list sufficiently liquid contracts, the Adviser and/or any Sub-Adviser will include those contracts in the list of possible investments of the Subsidiary. The list of commodities futures and commodities markets considered for investment can and will change over time.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has adopted substantial amendments to CFTC Rule 4.5 relating to the permissible exemptions and conditions for reliance on exemptions from registration as a commodity pool operator. As a result of the instruments that will be indirectly held by the Fund, the Adviser will register as a commodity pool operator
While the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Fund may not invest more than 25% of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry or group of industries. This restriction will not apply to obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other investment companies.
The Subsidiary's shares will be offered only to the Fund and the Fund will not sell shares of the Subsidiary to other investors. The Fund and the Subsidiary will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities (other than shares of the Subsidiary). The Fund will not purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act or any applicable exemptive relief.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser.
The Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) will be determined as of the close of trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”)) on each day the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is open for business. The NAV of the Fund will be calculated by dividing the value of the net assets of such Fund (
The Fund's and the Subsidiary's investments will be generally valued using market valuations. A market valuation generally means a valuation (i) obtained from an exchange, a pricing service, or a major market maker (or dealer), (ii) based on a price quotation or other equivalent indication of value supplied by an exchange, a pricing service, or a major market maker (or dealer), or (iii) based on amortized cost. The Fund and the Subsidiary may use various pricing services or discontinue the use of any pricing service. A price obtained from a pricing service based on such pricing service's valuation matrix may be considered a market valuation.
If available, debt securities and money market instruments with maturities of more than 60 days will typically be priced based on valuations provided by independent, third-party pricing agents. Such values will generally reflect the last reported sales price if the security is actively traded. The third-party pricing agents may also value debt securities at an evaluated bid price by employing methodologies that utilize actual market transactions, broker-supplied valuations, or other methodologies designed to identify the market value for such securities. Debt obligations with remaining maturities of 60 days or less may be valued on the basis of amortized cost, which approximates market value. If such prices are not available, the security will be valued based on values supplied by independent brokers or by fair value pricing, as described below.
Futures contracts will be valued at the settlement price established each day by the board or exchange on which they are traded.
Exchange-traded options will be valued at the closing price in the market where such contracts are principally traded.
Swaps will be valued based on valuations provided by independent, third-party pricing agents.
Securities of non-exchange-traded investment companies will be valued at NAV. Equity securities listed on a securities exchange (including exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments and exchange-traded investment companies), market or automated quotation system for which quotations are readily available (except for securities traded on The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) and the London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market (“LSE AIM”)) will be valued at the last reported sale price on the primary exchange or market on which they are traded on the valuation date (or at approximately 4:00 p.m., E.T. if a security's primary exchange is normally open at that time). For a security that trades on multiple exchanges, the primary exchange will generally be considered to be the exchange on which the security generally has the highest volume of trading activity. If it is not possible to determine the last reported sale price on the relevant exchange or market on the valuation date, the value of the security will be taken to be the most recent mean between the bid and asked prices on such exchange or market on the valuation date. Absent both bid and asked prices on such exchange, the bid price may be used. For securities traded on the NASDAQ or LSE AIM, the official closing price will be used. If such prices are not available, the security will be valued based on values supplied by independent brokers or by fair value pricing, as described below.
The prices for foreign instruments will be reported in local currency and converted to U.S. dollars using currency exchange rates. Exchange rates will be provided daily by recognized independent pricing agents.
In the event that current market valuations are not readily available or such valuations do not reflect current market values, the affected investments will be valued using fair value pricing pursuant to the pricing policy and procedures approved by the Board in accordance with the 1940 Act. Fair value pricing may require subjective determinations about the value of an
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at NAV
Creations and redemptions must be made by or through an Authorized Participant that has executed an agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. All standard orders to create Creation Units must be received by the Distributor no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., E.T.) (the “Closing Time”) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt not later than the Closing Time of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the Distributor and only on a business day.
On each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange, the Fund will cause to be published through the National Securities Clearing Corporation the list of the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Component (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following business day.
The Fund's Web site (
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in BATS Rule 14.11(i)(3)(C) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio (including the Subsidiary's portfolio), will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours.
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Intra-day executable price quotations on the securities and other assets held by the Fund and the Subsidiary will be available from major broker-dealer firms or on the exchange on which they are traded, as applicable. Intra-day price information on the securities and other assets held by the Fund and the Subsidiary will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors. More specifically, pricing information for exchange-traded commodity futures contracts, exchange-traded options on futures contracts, exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments, securities of exchange-traded investment companies other than exchange-traded commodity-linked
Investors will also be able to obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Information relating to the Benchmark, including its constituents, weightings and changes to its constituents, will be available on the Web site of S&P Indices.
The Shares will be subject to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund and the Subsidiary must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BATS Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities, Commodities and other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund and the Subsidiary; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(iv), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. BATS will allow trading in the Shares from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in BATS Rule 11.11(a), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00, for which the minimum price variation for order entry is $0.0001.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying shares in exchange traded investment companies, futures, and options on futures via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to TRACE. With respect to the futures contracts in which the Subsidiary invests, not more than 10% of the weight (to be calculated as the value of the contract divided by the total absolute notional value of the Subsidiary's futures contracts) of the futures contracts held by the Subsidiary in the aggregate shall consist of instruments whose principal trading market is a market from which the Exchange may not obtain information regarding trading in the futures contracts by virtue of: (a) Its membership in ISG; or (b) a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, at least 90% of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded options on futures contracts and exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments (in the aggregate), will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. Investments in non-centrally cleared swaps (through the Subsidiary) will not represent more than 20% of the Fund's net assets.
In addition, the Exchange prohibits the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) BATS Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site. In addition, the Information Circular will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Fund's Registration Statement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in BATS Rule 14.11(i). The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. If the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser to the investment company shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer, although it is affiliated with a broker-dealer, and is therefore required to implement a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In addition, Rule 14.11(i)(7) further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying shares in investment companies, futures, and options on futures via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and in the exchange-traded Commodities and exchange-traded investment companies not included within the definition of Commodities (together, “Exchange-Traded Instruments”) held by the Fund and the Subsidiary with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and in the Exchange-Traded Instruments held by the Fund and the Subsidiary from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and in the Exchange-Traded Instruments held by the Fund and the Subsidiary from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange will be able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE.
With respect to the futures contracts in which the Subsidiary invests, not more than 10% of the weight (to be calculated as the value of the contract divided by the total absolute notional value of the Subsidiary's futures contracts) of the futures contracts held by the Subsidiary in the aggregate shall consist of instruments whose principal trading market is a market from which the Exchange may not obtain information regarding trading in the futures contracts by virtue of: (a) Its membership in ISG; or (b) a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, at least 90% of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded options on futures contracts and exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments (in the aggregate) will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. Investments in non-centrally cleared swaps (through the Subsidiary) will not represent more than 20% of the Fund's net assets.
The Fund's investment objective will be to provide total return which exceeds that of the Benchmark, consistent with prudent investment management. The Fund will invest in Commodities through investments in the Subsidiary and will not invest directly in physical commodities. The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary may not exceed 25% of the Fund's total assets. While the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours. On each business day, before commencement of
Intra-day executable price quotations on the securities and other assets held by the Fund and the Subsidiary will be available from major broker-dealer firms or on the exchange on which they are traded, as applicable. Intra-day price information on the securities and other assets held by the Fund and the Subsidiary will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors. More specifically, pricing information for exchange-traded commodity futures contracts, exchange-traded options on futures contracts, exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments, and exchange-traded investment companies other than exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments will be available on the exchanges on which they are traded and through subscription services. Pricing information for non-exchange-traded investment companies will be available through the applicable fund's Web site or major market data vendors. Pricing information for swaps, fixed income securities and money market instruments will be available through subscription services and/or broker-dealer firms and/or pricing services. Additionally, FINRA's TRACE will be a source of price information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund.
The Fund's Web site will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted under the conditions specified in BATS Rule 11.18. Trading may also be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Finally, trading in the Shares will be subject to BATS Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(iv), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to FINRA's TRACE. As noted above, investors will also have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and in the Exchange-Traded Instruments held by the Fund and the Subsidiary with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) 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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Changda International Holdings, Inc. (“CDBH
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 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 company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 30, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 13, 2016.
By the Commission.
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, AX, AY, and AZ and related fees for the ALLB routing strategy. These fee codes would enable
•
•
•
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 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 7, 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,
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 EDGX, BYX, and BZX 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 EDGX, BYX or BYX 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 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”),
NASDAQ proposes to modify the fee structure applicable to Professional Subscribers (“Subscribers”) for Non-Display Usage via Direct Access. While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on January 1, 2016.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is
(a) No change.
(b) Subscriber Fees.
(1)-(3) No change.
(4) Professional Subscribers pay a monthly fee for Non-Display Usage based upon Direct Access to NASDAQ Level 2, NASDAQ TotalView, or NASDAQ OpenView:
The Professional Subscriber fee for Non-Display Usage via Direct Access[ed] applies to any Subscriber that accesses any data elements included in any Depth-of-Book data feed.
(c)-(f) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 modify and simplify the fee structure applicable to Professional Subscribers for Non-Display Usage via Direct Access. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove the 11-29 Subscriber and 30-49 Subscriber pricing tiers and replace the 1-10 Subscriber tier priced at $300 per Subscriber with a 1-39 Subscriber tier priced at $375 per Subscriber. The 50-99 Subscriber tier priced at $15,000 per firm is subsequently being adjusted to apply between [sic] 40-99 Subscribers. Minor clarificatory and typographical changes are also being included in the proposed rule change. This proposed rule change will not affect the pricing of the NASDAQ Level 2, NASDAQ TotalView or NASDAQ OpenView Non-Professional Subscriber fees.
This represents the first price revision since the 2012 introduction of the current tiered Non-Display fee model. Notwithstanding this, NASDAQ has invested in its systems, networks and operational controls to ensure that its depth offering meet [sic] the same high level of performance and resiliency that customers have come to expect. The Exchange has also upgraded and refreshed its disaster recovery capabilities, adding to the increased focus on redundancy and resiliency.
NASDAQ has also invested in, and continues to make enhancements to, the Net Order Imbalance Indicator (“NOII”). The NOII is a vital imbalance data tool, and is included as a part of Nasdaq TotalView. It is designed to specifically increase the value of auction information, and provide a greater level of transparency around these events. One enhancement result is that shares indicated in the imbalance will now represent the excess shares to buy or sell at the reference price, inclusive of hidden, reserve and immediate or cancel (“IOC”) orders.
The new fee structure also represents a realization of the actual usage by Subscribers, as the tiers being removed were experiencing limited use.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public.
The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by deregulating the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market as well. Level 2, NASDAQ TotalView and NASDAQ OpenView are precisely the sort of market data products that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
The Court in
NASDAQ believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing conventions and distinctions that exist in NASDAQ's current fee schedule. These distinctions are each based on principles of fairness and equity that have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or greater force to the current proposal.
As described in greater detail below, if NASDAQ has calculated improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair, inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and NASDAQ is not required to make data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives for potential purchases. NASDAQ can discontinue offering a pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. NASDAQ continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing fairness and equitable allocation of fees among Subscribers.
NASDAQ believes that periodically it must adjust the Subscriber fees to reflect market forces. NASDAQ believes it is an appropriate time to adjust this fee to more accurately reflect the investments made to enhance this product through capacity upgrades and regulatory data sets added. This also reflects that the market for this information is highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer (“BD”) will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.”
Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an “excessive” price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.
In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this space in 2006-2007 following the development and Commission approval of the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the market.
Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users. Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or 20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of proprietary products.
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.”
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Zhong Wen International Holding Co., Ltd. (“ZWIH
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 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 company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 29, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 12, 2016.
By the Commission.
On October 5, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2015-016 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
As proposed by OCC,
According to OCC, STANS is OCC's proprietary risk management system that calculates clearing members' margin requirements. According to OCC, the STANS methodology uses Monte Carlo simulations to forecast price movement and correlations in determining a clearing member's margin requirement. According to OCC, under STANS, the daily margin calculation for each clearing member account is constructed to ensure OCC maintains sufficient financial resources to liquidate a defaulting member's positions, without loss, within the liquidation horizon of two business days.
As described by OCC, the STANS margin requirement for an account is composed of two primary components: A base component and a stress test component. According to OCC, the base component is obtained from a risk measure of the expected margin shortfall for an account that results under Monte Carlo price movement simulations. For the exposures that are observed regarding the account, the base
According to OCC, including variations in implied volatility within STANS is intended to ensure that the anticipated cost of liquidating each Shorter Tenor Option position in an account recognizes the possibility that implied volatility could change during the two business day liquidation time horizon in STANS and lead to corresponding changes in the market prices of the options. According to OCC, generally speaking, the implied volatility of an option is a measure of the expected future volatility of the value of the option's annualized standard deviation of the price of the underlying security, index, or future at exercise, which is reflected in the current option premium in the market. Using the Black-Scholes options pricing model, the implied volatility is the standard deviation of the underlying asset price necessary to arrive at the market price of an option of a given strike, time to maturity, underlying asset price and given the current risk-free rate. In effect, the implied volatility is responsible for that portion of the premium that cannot be explained by the then-current intrinsic value
OCC is proposing certain modifications to STANS to more broadly incorporate variations in implied volatility for Shorter Tenor Options. Consistent with its approach for Longer Tenor Options, OCC will model a volatility surface
According to OCC, it considered incorporating more than nine pivot points but concluded that would not be appropriate for Shorter Tenor Options because: (i) Back-testing results, from January 2008 to May 2013, revealed that using more pivot points did not produce more meaningful information (
Under OCC's model for Shorter Tenor Options, the volatility surfaces will be defined using tenors of one month, three months, and one year with absolute deltas, in each case, of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75,
According to OCC, it first will use its econometric models to jointly simulate changes to implied volatility at the nine pivot points and changes to underlying prices.
OCC believes that the proposed change will enhance OCC's ability to ensure that STANS appropriately takes into account normal market conditions that OCC may encounter in the event that, pursuant to OCC Rule 1102, it suspends a defaulted clearing member and liquidates its accounts.
OCC estimates that this change generally will increase margin requirements overall, but will decrease
According to OCC, it expects customer accounts to experience the largest margin increases because positions considered under STANS for customer accounts typically consist of more short than long options positions, and therefore reflect a greater magnitude of directional risk than other account types. According to OCC, positions considered under STANS for customer accounts typically consist of more short than long options positions to facilitate clearing members' compliance with Commission requirements for the protection of certain customer property under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3(b).
OCC expects margin requirements to decrease for accounts with underlying exposure and implied volatility exposure in the same direction, such as concentrated call positions, due to the negative correlation typically observed between these two factors. According to OCC, over the back-testing period, about 28% of the observations for accounts on the days studied had lower margins under the proposed methodology and the average reduction was about 2.7%. Parallel results will be made available to the membership in the weeks ahead of implementation.
To help clearing members prepare for the proposed change, OCC has provided clearing members with an information memorandum explaining the proposal, including the planned timeline for its implementation, and discussed with certain other clearinghouses the likely effects of the change on OCC's cross-margin agreements with them. OCC also published an information memorandum to notify clearing members of the submission of this filing to the Commission. Subject to all necessary regulatory approvals regarding the proposed change, OCC intends to begin making parallel margin calculations with and without the changes in the margin methodology. The commencement of the calculations will be announced by an information memorandum, and OCC will provide the calculations to clearing members each business day. OCC also will provide at least thirty days prior notice to clearing members before implementing the change. OCC believes that clearing members will have sufficient time and data to plan for the potential increases in their respective margin requirements.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
By limiting its credit exposure in this way that is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Exchange Act,
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information collected on the FAA Form 8120-11 is reported voluntarily by manufacturers, repair stations, aircraft owner/operators, air carriers, and the general public who wish to report suspected unapproved parts to the FAA for review. The report information is collected and correlated by the FAA, Aviation Safety Hotline Program Office, and used to determine if an unapproved part investigation is warranted.
Written comments should be submitted by February 3, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Fifteenth RTCA Special Committee 209 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Fifteenth RTCA Special Committee 209 meeting.
The meeting will be held February 1-5, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0654.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 209. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2015.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information garnered from a Specific Release Form will be used by FAA Special Agents to obtain information related to a specific investigation. That information is then provided to the FAA decision making authority to make FAA employment and/or pilot certification/revocation determinations.
Written comments should be submitted by February 3, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise a currently approved information collection. The FAA is developing an information system to collect certain frequency information currently being collected on form 7460-1, and to revise form 7460-1 to remove frequency information requests.
Written comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Twenty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 214 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Twenty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 214 meeting.
The meeting will be held January 13, 2016 from 08:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 214. The meeting's objectives will be to resolve issues that arose following the last plenary resolution; approve comments received during FRAC/Open consultation of Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards SPR and INTEROPS; and to approve documents for submission to RTCA PMC and EUROCAE Council for publication. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Thirty-Eighth RTCA Special Committee 224 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Thirty-Eighth RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting.
The meeting will be held January 28, 2016 from 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Request for public comments on a proposed collection of information.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection. The information collection involves eligibility, demographic, and debriefing questionnaires. The information will be used to recruit participants for a study on vehicle Head-Up Displays. The proposed study will focus on acceptance and distraction potential of automotive Head-Up Displays.
Written comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0116 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For access to background documents, contact Julie Kang, Ph.D.; 202-366-5677, Vehicle Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
The information to be collected will be used as follows:
•
•
•
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F-
UP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the Line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will become effective on February 3, 2016, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
UP has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by January 8, 2016. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or interim trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
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 other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) (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 comment concerning its information collection entitled, “Bank Secrecy Act/Money Laundering Risk Assessment,” also known as the Money Laundering Risk (MLR) System.
Comments must be submitted by March 4, 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: 1557-0231, 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 include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 874-5090, 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.
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include questions posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States, if the results are to be used for general statistical purposes, that is, if the results are to be used for statistical compilations of general public interest, including compilations showing the status or implementation of Federal activities and programs. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The MLR System enhances the ability of examiners and bank management to identify and evaluate Bank Secrecy Act/Money Laundering and Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) sanctions risks associated with banks' products, services, customers, and locations. As new products and services are introduced, existing products and services change, and banks expand through mergers and acquisitions, banks' evaluation of money laundering and terrorist financing risks should evolve as well. Consequently, the MLR risk assessment is an important tool for the OCC's Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering/OFAC supervision activities because it allows the agency to better identify those institutions, and areas within institutions, that pose heightened risk and allocate examination resources accordingly. This risk assessment is critical in protecting U.S. financial institutions of all sizes from potential abuse from money laundering and terrorist financing. Absent an appropriate risk assessment, applicable controls cannot be effectively implemented for the lines of business, products, or entities that would elevate Bank Secrecy Act/Money Laundering and OFAC compliance risks.
We will collect MLR information for all financial institutions supervised by the OCC.
The OCC recently updated the annual Risk Summary Form (RSF). The 2015 form has a fully automated format that makes data entry quick and efficient and provides an electronic record for all parties.
The OCC estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Community Bank and Federal Branches and Agencies populations:
Midsize Bank population:
Large Bank population:
With respect to the above collection of information, the OCC invites comments on these topics:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments should address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology as well as other relevant aspects of the information collection request.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, the Commission on Care gives notice that it will meet on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 and Thursday, January 21, 2016 at the J.W. Marriott, Jr. ASAE Conference Center, 1575 I St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 2016. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 21, 2016. The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Commission, as described in section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, is to examine the access of veterans to health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs and strategically examine how best to organize the Veterans Health Administration, locate health care resources, and deliver health care to veterans during the next 20 years.
No time will be allocated at these meetings for receiving oral presentations from the public. The public may submit written statements for the Commission's review to
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2., that the MyVA Advisory Committee (MVAC) will meet February 1-2, 2016, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration Training Academy, 31 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Executive Director, MyVA Task Force Office regarding the My VA initiative and VA's ability to rebuild trust with Veterans and other stakeholders, improve service delivery with a focus on Veteran outcomes, and set the course for longer-term excellence and reform of VA.
On February 1, from 8:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect Veteran privacy as the Committee tours the Veterans Benefits Administration Training Academy, 31 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201.
On February 2, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the Committee will meet at the Veterans Benefits Administration Training Academy, 31 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201, to discuss and recommend areas for improvement on VA's work to date, plans for the future, and integration of the MyVA efforts. This session is open to the public. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Debra Walker, Designated Federal Officer, MyVA Program Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1800 G Street NW., Room 880-40, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Because the meeting will be held in a Government building, anyone attending must be prepared to show a valid photo government issued ID. Please allow a minimum of one hour to move through the security process, which includes a metal detector, prior to the start of the meeting.
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 |