Federal Register Vol. 81, No.108,
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 108 (June 6, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 108 (June 6, 2016)
| Page Range | 36137-36431 | |
| FR Document |
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2016 / Notices 107
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION II. Notice of Commission Action www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
The Commission establishes Docket comments electronically should contact
[Docket Nos. MC2016–58 and CP2016–73;
Order No. 2934] Nos. MC2016–58 and CP2016–73 to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
consider the Request pertaining to the
New Postal Product proposed Priority Mail & First-Class telephone for advice on filing
Package Service Contract 10 product alternatives.
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
and the related contract, respectively. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION: Notice. The Commission invites comments on David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a whether the Postal Service’s filings in 202–789–6820.
recent Postal Service filing concerning the captioned dockets are consistent
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the addition of Priority Mail & First- with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632,
Class Package Service Contract 10 to the 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 Table of Contents
competitive product list. This notice CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are I. Introduction
informs the public of the filing, invites due no later than January 5, 2016. The II. Notice of Commission Action
public comment, and takes other public portions of these filings can be III. Ordering Paragraphs
administrative steps. accessed via the Commission’s Web site
(http://www.prc.gov). I. Introduction
DATES: Comments are due: January 5,
2016. The Commission appoints Derrick D. In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642
Dennis to serve as Public Representative and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in these dockets. Service filed a formal request and
electronically via the Commission’s associated supporting information to
Filing Online system at http:// III. Ordering Paragraphs
add Priority Mail & First-Class Package
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit It is ordered: Service Contract 11 to the competitive
comments electronically should contact 1. The Commission establishes Docket product list.1
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER Nos. MC2016–58 and CP2016–73 to The Postal Service
INFORMATION CONTACT section by consider the matters raised in each contemporaneously filed a redacted
telephone for advice on filing docket. contract related to the proposed new
alternatives. 2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Derrick product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Dennis is appointed to serve as an 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at officer of the Commission to represent
To support its Request, the Postal
202–789–6820. the interests of the general public in
Service filed a copy of the contract, a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
these proceedings (Public
copy of the Governors’ Decision
Representative).
Table of Contents authorizing the product, proposed
3. Comments are due no later than
changes to the Mail Classification
I. Introduction January 5, 2016.
Schedule, a Statement of Supporting
II. Notice of Commission Action 4. The Secretary shall arrange for
Justification, a certification of
III. Ordering Paragraphs publication of this order in the Federal
compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and
Register.
I. Introduction an application for non-public treatment
By the Commission. of certain materials. It also filed
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 Stacy L. Ruble, supporting financial workpapers.
and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal
Secretary.
Service filed a formal request and II. Notice of Commission Action
[FR Doc. 2015–32981 Filed 12–31–15; 8:45 am]
associated supporting information to
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P The Commission establishes Docket
add Priority Mail & First-Class Package
Nos. MC2016–62 and CP2016–77 to
Service Contract 10 to the competitive
consider the Request pertaining to the
product list.1
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION proposed Priority Mail & First-Class
The Postal Service
contemporaneously filed a redacted Package Service Contract 11 product
[Docket Nos. MC2016–62 and CP2016–77;
contract related to the proposed new Order No. 2933]
and the related contract, respectively.
product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and The Commission invites comments on
39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B. New Postal Product whether the Postal Service’s filings in
To support its Request, the Postal the captioned dockets are consistent
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632,
Service filed a copy of the contract, a
copy of the Governors’ Decision ACTION: Notice. 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39
authorizing the product, proposed CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a due no later than January 5, 2016. The
changes to the Mail Classification recent Postal Service filing concerning
Schedule, a Statement of Supporting public portions of these filings can be
the addition of Priority Mail & First- accessed via the Commission’s Web site
Justification, a certification of Class Package Service Contract 11 to the
compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and (http://www.prc.gov).
competitive product list. This notice
an application for non-public treatment The Commission appoints Curtis E.
informs the public of the filing, invites
of certain materials. It also filed Kidd to serve as Public Representative
public comment, and takes other
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
supporting financial workpapers. in these dockets.
administrative steps.
1 Request of the United States Postal Service to DATES: Comments are due: January 5, 1 Request of the United States Postal Service to
Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service 2016. Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service
Contract 10 to Competitive Product List and Notice Contract 11 to Competitive Product List and Notice
of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors’
ADDRESSES: Submit comments of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors’
Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December electronically via the Commission’s Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December
23, 2015 (Request). Filing Online system at http:// 24, 2015 (Request).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Dec 31, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_108/page/1.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-31 23:05:35
Document Modified: 2015-12-31 23:05:35
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 36304 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36351 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36350 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 81 FR 36228 - Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 81 FR 36385 - Government Securities: Call for Large Position Reports | |
| 81 FR 36375 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for a U.S. Passport: Corrections, Name Change Within 1 Year of Passport Issuance, and Limited Passport Holders | |
| 81 FR 36166 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Kennebec River, Richmond and Dresden, ME | |
| 81 FR 36243 - Safety Zone; Casco Bay Islands Swim/Run, Casco Bay, Portland, ME | |
| 81 FR 36169 - Safety Zone; Upper New York Bay, Liberty Island, NY | |
| 81 FR 36167 - Safety Zones; Multiple Fireworks in Captain of the Port New York Zone | |
| 81 FR 36168 - Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin | |
| 81 FR 36174 - Safety Zone; Raritan Bay, Perth Amboy, NJ | |
| 81 FR 36154 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 81 FR 36350 - Comment Request for Information Collection for the Evaluation of the Disability Employment Initiative Round 5 and Future Rounds; Correction | |
| 81 FR 36303 - Stakeholder Workshop To Discuss Interim Scientific Methods Used in Draft Biological Evaluations; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36284 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Open Teleconference; Cancellation | |
| 81 FR 36301 - Atrazine, Simazine, and Propazine Registration Review; Draft Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability | |
| 81 FR 36284 - Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee Meeting; Cancellation | |
| 81 FR 36308 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36254 - Inviting Applications for Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grants | |
| 81 FR 36278 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
| 81 FR 36319 - Committee Name: Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council | |
| 81 FR 36186 - Disabled Veteran Leave and Other Miscellaneous Changes | |
| 81 FR 36266 - United States Investment Advisory Council: Meeting of the United States Investment Advisory Council | |
| 81 FR 36354 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Corporate Credit Union Monthly Call Report | |
| 81 FR 36267 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012 | |
| 81 FR 36353 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36264 - Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and the United Kingdom: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; 2009-2010 | |
| 81 FR 36261 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012 | |
| 81 FR 36263 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation | |
| 81 FR 36268 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
| 81 FR 36322 - Renewals of Information Collections Under the Paperwork Reduction Act | |
| 81 FR 36356 - Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences; Fiscal Year 2015; Dissemination of Information | |
| 81 FR 36321 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Resource Management Plan for the Taos Field Office, New Mexico, and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Acceptance of the Rimrock Rose Ranch Donation | |
| 81 FR 36283 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 81 FR 36301 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Oklahoma | |
| 81 FR 36376 - 2015 Tax Information for Use in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method | |
| 81 FR 36283 - DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 36276 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
| 81 FR 36279 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36284 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National Laboratory | |
| 81 FR 36378 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 81 FR 36281 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36381 - Establishment of Interim National Multimodal Freight Network | |
| 81 FR 36282 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Superior Armor Systems | |
| 81 FR 36278 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Meeting Notice | |
| 81 FR 36288 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of Raypak Inc. From the Department of Energy Commercial Water Heater Test Procedure | |
| 81 FR 36284 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of Thermal Solutions Products, LLC From the Department of Energy Commercial Water Heater Test Procedure | |
| 81 FR 36260 - Rural Energy Savings Program; Measurement, Verification, Training and Technical Assistance; Correction | |
| 81 FR 36282 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36295 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of HTP, Inc. From the Department of Energy Commercial Water Heater Test Procedure | |
| 81 FR 36305 - Notice of Termination; 10450, First Cherokee State Bank, Woodstock, Georgia | |
| 81 FR 36305 - Notice of Termination; 10418, Central Florida State Bank, Belleview, Florida | |
| 81 FR 36306 - Notice of Termination; 10287, Bank of Ellijay, Ellijay, Georgia | |
| 81 FR 36353 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Payments on Shares by Public Units and Nonmembers | |
| 81 FR 36171 - Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update | |
| 81 FR 36321 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NV | |
| 81 FR 36344 - Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions | |
| 81 FR 36251 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex Fishery; Framework Adjustment 3 and 2016-2017 Specifications | |
| 81 FR 36305 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0169) | |
| 81 FR 36306 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10159, Valley Capital Bank, Mesa, Arizona | |
| 81 FR 36184 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2016 Management Measures; Correction | |
| 81 FR 36320 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho | |
| 81 FR 36276 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 81 FR 36386 - MyVA Federal Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36354 - Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 | |
| 81 FR 36182 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement | |
| 81 FR 36139 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 36279 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 81 FR 36310 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Human Tissue Intended for Transplantation | |
| 81 FR 36313 - Labeling for Biosimilar Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 81 FR 36307 - Submission for OMB Review; Travel Costs | |
| 81 FR 36181 - Relay Services for Deaf Blind Individuals | |
| 81 FR 36254 - Forest Resource Coordinating Committee Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36309 - Reallotment of FY 2015 Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) | |
| 81 FR 36183 - International Fisheries; Eastern Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Amend Regulations Implementing Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Resolution C-02-03 | |
| 81 FR 36180 - Place of Business Location Change | |
| 81 FR 36377 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Correction | |
| 81 FR 36357 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect a Change to the Benchmark Index Applicable to the WisdomTree Managed Futures Strategy Fund | |
| 81 FR 36367 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of “Block” for Purposes of Rule 72(d)-Equities and the Size of a Proposed Cross Transaction Eligible for the Cross Function in Rule 76-Equities | |
| 81 FR 36357 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of “Block” for Purposes of Rule 72(d) and the Size of a Proposed Cross Transaction Eligible for the Cross Function in Rule 76 | |
| 81 FR 36367 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing the Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program Submitted to the Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS Under the Act | |
| 81 FR 36361 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing the Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program Submitted to the Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS Under the Act | |
| 81 FR 36336 - Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone | |
| 81 FR 36325 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Federal Oil and Gas Valuation; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36265 - Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 81 FR 36262 - Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2016 | |
| 81 FR 36261 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 81 FR 36373 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36314 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36318 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 36317 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 36317 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36316 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36319 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36315 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36317 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 36314 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 36316 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Health Information National Trends Survey V (HINTS V) (NCI) | |
| 81 FR 36351 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 81 FR 36245 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic Communication | |
| 81 FR 36350 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 81 FR 36306 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 81 FR 36380 - Request for Approval of a New Information Collection | |
| 81 FR 36346 - United States of America v. BBA Aviation plc, et al.; Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment | |
| 81 FR 36324 - Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement To Address the Presence of Wolves at Isle Royale National Park | |
| 81 FR 36377 - Notice of Request To Release Airport Property | |
| 81 FR 36310 - Organon USA et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 67 New Drug Applications and 128 Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction | |
| 81 FR 36312 - Determination That APRESOLINE (Hydralazine Hydrochloride) Injectable and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 81 FR 36378 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at Ralph Wenz Field, Pinedale, Wyoming | |
| 81 FR 36144 - Notice of Policy on Evaluating Disputed Changes of Sponsorship at Federally Obligated Airports | |
| 81 FR 36373 - Oklahoma Disaster #OK-00103 | |
| 81 FR 36387 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of the Section 4(d) Rule for the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana | |
| 81 FR 36309 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 36344 - Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore New York; MMAA104000 | |
| 81 FR 36336 - Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 6 (ATLW-6) for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New York-Proposed Sale Notice | |
| 81 FR 36375 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 36179 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; Correction | |
| 81 FR 36193 - Executive Branch Ethics Program Amendments | |
| 81 FR 36141 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the Following Oklahoma Towns: Antlers, OK; Oklahoma City, OK; Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee, OK | |
| 81 FR 36140 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clovis, NM | |
| 81 FR 36214 - Proposed Modification of Class D Airspace; Peru, IN | |
| 81 FR 36425 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Purchasing by Non-Federal Entities | |
| 81 FR 36423 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Rewrite of GSAR Part 515, Contracting by Negotiation | |
| 81 FR 36421 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Rewrite of GSAR Part 517, Special Contracting Methods | |
| 81 FR 36137 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) | |
| 81 FR 36216 - Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles | |
| 81 FR 36229 - Mergers and Transfers Between Multiemployer Plans | |
| 81 FR 36211 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 36176 - Finding of Attainment and Approval of Attainment Plan for Klamath Falls, Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area | |
| 81 FR 36145 - Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Technical Corrections |
Issue
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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 (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and EC135T2+ helicopters. This AD requires reducing the life limit of certain parts and removing each part that has reached its life limit. The actions of this AD are intended to reduce the life limits of certain critical parts to prevent failure of a part and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective July 11, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On November 13, 2014, at 79 FR 67382, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0178, dated August 7, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC635T1, EC635P2+, and EC635T2+ helicopters. EASA advises that ECD has revised the airworthiness limitations for the EC135 and EC635 type design as published in the Master Servicing Manual (MSM) EC135 Chapter 04—ALS documents. Revision 14 of the MSM contains these new airworthiness limitations. EASA states that failure to comply with these limitations could result in an unsafe condition. For these reasons, EASA AD No. 2013-0178 requires revising the ALS to include the new life limits and replacing each part that has reached its life limit.
Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated and a group email address has been established for requesting an FAA Alternative Method of Compliance for a helicopter of foreign design. We have updated this information throughout this Final Rule.
After our NPRM (79 FR 67382, November 13, 2014) was published, we received comments from three commenters.
Three commenters requested that the FAA not issue this AD. The commenters stated an AD to revise the airworthiness limitations of an aircraft manual is unnecessary because operators are required to use the most current revision of the manual.
We disagree. The FAA must issue an AD to mandate an airworthiness limitations revision, such as a new life limit, for all operators.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
This AD does not apply to Airbus Helicopters Model EC635T1, P2+, or EC635T2+ helicopters because those helicopters are not type certificated in the U.S.
The airworthiness limitations and maintenance procedures for certain parts are contained in the Airworthiness Limitations section, Chapter 4, of Eurocopter's MSM EC135, dated December 1, 2001. Revision 14 of the MSM, dated July 1, 2012, establishes a life limit for certain part-numbered main rotor blades and reduces the life limits for swashplate and mixing lever gear unit parts.
We estimate that this AD affects 267 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We estimate 2 work-hours to update the maintenance manual for a total cost of $170 for each helicopter and $45,390 for the U.S. fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and EC135T2+ helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a critical part, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective July 11, 2016.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Before further flight:
(1) Revise the life limit of each part listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the applicable maintenance manual and record the revised life limit on the component history card or equivalent record as follows:
(i) For swashplate parts:
(A) Ring (bearing ring), part number (P/N) L623M2001214, reduce the life limit from 8,300 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 8,000 hours TIS.
(B) Ring (control ring), P/N L623M2001213, reduce the life limit from 8,300 hours TIS to 8,000 hours TIS.
(C) Cardan ring (two-part), P/N L623M2005205, reduce the life limit from 14,400 hours TIS to 12,900 hours TIS.
(D) Bolt (control ring), P/N L671M7001215, reduce the life limit from 14,400 hours TIS to 12,900 hours TIS.
(E) Bolt (sliding sleeve), P/N L623M2006206 and P/N L623M2006213, reduce the life limit from 14,400 hours TIS to 12,900 hours TIS.
(ii) For mixing lever gear unit parts:
(A) Forked lever assembly, P/N L671M3012102, reduce the life limit from 9,000 hours TIS to 8,700 hours TIS.
(B) Hinged support, P/N L671M7003210, reduce the life limit from 8,700 hours TIS to 8,400 hours TIS.
(C) Bolt, P/N L671M7001220, reduce the life limit from 8,700 hours TIS to 8,400 hours TIS.
(2) Remove from service any part listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD that has reached or exceeded its newly revised life limit.
Special flight permits are limited to a one-time flight to a maintenance facility to replace a part that has reached its life limit.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Eurocopter Master Servicing Manual EC135 Chapter 04—Airworthiness Limitations Section, Revision 14, dated July 1, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this final rule. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0178, dated August 7, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300, 2700 Swashplate Ring, Cardan
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This final rule is effective June 6, 2016.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5575; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
Airworthiness Directive 2016-08-18, Amendment 39-18495 (81 FR 26106, May 2, 2016), currently requires inspecting the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly for proper clearance between them, inspecting each assembly for any sign of damage, and making any necessary repairs or replacements for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-31-350 airplanes.
As published, the wing locations of engine TIO-540-JJ2B and LTIO-540-J2B in table 1 of the Applicability, paragraph (c), section are incorrect. This document corrects that error.
Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains June 6, 2016.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 6, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-31-350 airplanes, serial numbers 31-5001 through 31-5004, 31-7305005 through 31-8452024, and 31-8253001 through 31-8553002, certificated in any category, that are equipped with the following engines and fuel pump hose assemblies:
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 73: Engine Fuel and Control.
This AD was prompted by a report of an engine fire caused by a leak in the fuel pump inlet hose. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (j)(2) of this AD, unless already done.
(1) Within the next 60 hours time-in-service (TIS) after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect to determine the clearance between the inlet and exit fuel hose assemblies listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, and each turbocharger support assembly, Lycoming P/N LW-18302. There should be a minimum 3/16-inch clearance. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if the measured clearance is less than 3/16-inch, make all necessary adjustments to make the clearance a minimum of 3/16-inch between the inlet and exit fuel hose assemblies listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD and each turbocharger support assembly,
(1) Within the next 60 hours TIS after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, visually inspect the inlet and exit fuel hose assemblies listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD for evidence of leaking, cracking, chafing, and any other sign of damage. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if any evidence of leaking, cracking, chafing, or any other sign of damage is found in any inlet or exit fuel host assembly listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, replace the fuel hose assembly with a serviceable part. Do the replacement following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(1) Within the next 60 hours TIS after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, visually inspect each turbocharger support assembly, Lycoming P/N LW-18302, for evidence of chafing and any other signs of damage. Do the inspection following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, if any evidence of chafing or any other sign of damage is found on any turbocharger support assembly, replace Lycoming P/N LW-18302 with a serviceable part. Do the replacement following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(1) If any fuel line component was adjusted or replaced during any actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (i)(2) of this AD, before further flight, perform an engine run-up on the ground to check for leaks. Do the engine run-up following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(2) If any leaks found during the engine run-up required in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD emanate from any fuel line component adjusted, repaired, or replaced during any actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (i)(2) of this AD, before further flight, take all necessary corrective actions following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5575; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1257A, dated August 4, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; fax: (772) 978-6573; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Portales Municipal Airport, Clovis, NM. Decommissioning of the Portales non-directional radio beacon (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches at Portales Municipal Airport, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates for Portales Municipal Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Portales Municipal Airport, Clovis, NM.
On March 11, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Portales Municipal Airport, Clovis, NM. With the decommissioning of the Portales NDB, removal of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approaches, the FAA is reducing the airspace from an 8-mile radius to a 6.6-mile radius of the airport in accordance with airspace requirements specified in FAA Joint Order 7400.2K. The geographic coordinates for Portales Municipal Airport are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 20-mile radius of Cannon AFB, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Portales Municipal Airport, and within 8 miles north and 4 miles south of the 072° radial of the Texico VORTAC extending from the 20-mile radius to 16 miles east of the VORTAC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as surface areas, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post Airport, Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional Airport, Shawnee, OK. The decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB) and/or cancellation of NDB approaches due to advances in Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities have made this action necessary for the safety and
Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as surface areas, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post Airport, Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional Airport, Shawnee, OK.
On March 11, 2016, the FAA published in the
One comment from Mr. Robert Pigott, Aeronautical Information Services, identified an error in the geographic coordinates for the Tilghman NDB and Antlers Municipal Airport, and identified that the name of Sundance Airport had been changed. The FAA agrees with the commenter and amends the geographic coordinates for Antlers Municipal Airport and the Tilghman NDB, as well as noting the name change to Sundance Airport.
Another comment was received from Carolyn Bloom, Aeronautical Information Services, advising that the geographic coordinates for Chandler Regional Airport had been updated after the NPRM was published, and that the name of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport had been changed. The FAA agrees with the commenter and amends the geographic coordinates for Chandler Regional Airport, and the name of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; and Prague Municipal Airport, Shawnee, OK. After review, the FAA found that with the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of the NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approaches the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at: Antlers Municipal Airport should be reduced from a 6.5-mile radius to 6.3 miles and the extension to the south of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.3 miles was no longer required; El Reno Regional Airport should be reduced from a 7.4-mile radius to 6.6 miles; and Prague Municipal Airport should be reduced from a 6.5-mile radius to 6.3 miles and the extension to the north of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.9 miles was no longer required in accordance with airspace requirements specified in FAA Joint Order 7400.2K. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures.
Additionally, this amendment notes the name change of the following airports: University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport (formerly University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airpark), Norman, OK; El Reno Regional Airport (formerly El Reno Municipal Airpark); Sundance Airport (formerly Sundance Airpark), Oklahoma City, OK; David Jay Perry Airport, Goldsby, OK (formerly David J. Perry Airport, Norman, OK); Shawnee Regional Airport (formerly Shawnee Municipal Airport); and Chandler Regional Airport (formerly Chandler Municipal Airport).
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, Will Rogers World Airport, OK, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Within a 4.3-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, Will Rogers World Airport, OK, Class C airspace area. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Antlers Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Will Rogers World Airport, and within an 8.2-mile radius of Tinker AFB, and within an 8.9-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer southwest course extending from the 8.9-mile radius to 12 miles southwest of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of David Jay Perry Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Clarence E. Page Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of El Reno Regional Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Sundance Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Shawnee Regional Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Seminole Municipal Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Prague Municipal Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Chandler Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 352° bearing from the Tilghman NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.3 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Cushing Municipal Airport and within 2.1 miles each side of the 185° bearing from the Cushing NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.3 miles south of the airport, and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of the Point In Space serving Cushing Regional Hospital Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of policy.
This document clarifies the FAA's legal authority and policy for addressing disputed changes of sponsorship at federally obligated, publicly owned airports. This document also explains the requirements for state or local government entities to coordinate with the FAA when contemplating actions that may impact an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations.
June 6, 2016.
Kevin C. Willis, Manager, Airport Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3085; facsimile: (202) 267-4629.
This document clarifies the FAA's legal authority and policy for monitoring and approving requests to change the sponsorship of, and/or operational responsibility for, an airport from one public agency to another public agency when there is a dispute surrounding the proposed change.
While state or local legislative action, or a judicial action, as the case may be, may seek to change an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, only the FAA has the authority to determine sponsor eligibility, approve and formally change airport sponsorship, and approve and issue a new Airport Operating Certificate pursuant to 14 CFR part 139. The FAA has a statutory obligation to ensure that an airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport. Specifically, an airport sponsor/operator must meet the requirements set out in title 49 U.S.C. 44706, as implemented by 14 CFR part 139, for obtaining an Airport Operating Certificate, (if applicable) or in 49 U.S.C. 47102, as implemented by FAA Order 5100.38D (which includes provisions governing sponsor eligibility for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding) and/or 14 CFR part 158 (which governs the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40117).
The FAA's obligation extends to reviewing sponsor/operator eligibility when state and local governments propose a change in the airport governance structure to ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding responsibility for Federal obligations and that any proposed changes will not impact compliance with Federal law. (In the event of a local or state dispute regarding sponsorship/operation of the airport, the FAA will apply the policy set out in Section IV below.) If any proposed changes give rise to such concerns by the FAA, the agency will work with state and/or local government(s) to resolve the concerns or, if the concerns cannot be addressed, deny the request.
Airport sponsors and operators are required to maintain compliance with Federal requirements at all times, and this document does not preclude the FAA from taking enforcement action if a sponsor or operator fails to fulfill its obligations, even if the FAA has approved the transfer.
Any state or local legislative body or public agency considering whether to take an action, such as drafting legislation, that would impact airport ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations should (1) consult with and obtain the consent of the current sponsor/operator (absent extraordinary circumstances, such as substantial evidence of mismanagement on the part of the current sponsor/operator);
In seeking technical assistance, representatives of the existing and/or proposed sponsors and operators must contact the appropriate Regional Office or Airport District Office (ADO) as early in the process as practicable. The Regional Office or ADO will inquire as to whether the proposed change is disputed, and the FAA will not act upon the proposed change until the dispute is resolved in accordance with Section IV below. In the absence of a dispute or upon final resolution of a dispute, the Regional Office or ADO will work with prospective airport sponsors and operators to ensure understanding of and compliance with the legal obligations associated with being an airport sponsor or operator (including those under part 139 as well as the AIP grant assurances and the PFC program requirements).
As soon as Regional Offices and ADOs become aware of a proposed change in ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, they must alert the FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, which will advise the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and Office of Airport Planning and Programming. The Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis is responsible for approving all changes to an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations. The Office of Airport Safety and Standards is responsible for administering 14 CFR part 139. The Regional Airport Safety and Standards Offices are responsible for approving changes to the part 139 Airport Certification Program Handbook. The Office of Airport Planning and Programming also plays a role in determining sponsor eligibility, and
The determination of whether to seek a new applicant for airport sponsorship is a state or local decision. The FAA expects that all disputes about whether to change airport sponsorship and/or operating authority will be resolved through a legally-binding agreement between the parties involved in the dispute or a final, non-reviewable legal decision. While parties should seek technical assistance from the FAA as early as practicable, parties are encouraged to wait until a dispute has been resolved before submitting an application to the FAA seeking the agency's approval of a change in sponsorship of, and/or operational responsibility for, an airport. In matters in which a proposed change is contested by a current sponsor or operator, the FAA will not act on a part 139 application or a change of airport sponsorship and/or operating authority until the dispute is definitively resolved to the satisfaction of the FAA. Resolution may be demonstrated by issuance of a final, non-reviewable judicial decision requiring such a change, by the issuance of a consent letter between the existing airport sponsor and/or operator and the proposed new sponsor and/or operator, or by other legally definitive means deemed acceptable to the FAA.
The FAA will accept an application for a change in airport sponsorship/operation only upon a legally definitive resolution of a dispute. At that time, the FAA will evaluate whether an application is complete and whether the proposed airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport as required by law.
In circumstances in which a change in sponsorship or operation of an airport is approved and effectuated, the new airport sponsor and/or operator should reimburse the prior sponsor for investments that have been made by the prior sponsor of the airport but have not been fully recouped at the time of the change in airport sponsorship. Any such reimbursements must be consistent with the FAA's
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), Interior.
Final rule.
This rule makes minor edits, changes, and updates to BSEE regulations. These changes include, but are not limited to: correcting all current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers from “1010” to “1014”; adding two new control numbers to regulations as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); changing the BSEE address from “Herndon, VA” to “Sterling, VA”; changing “shall” to “will” or “must” and changing “which” to “that”; and revising other language where necessary for improved clarity.
This rule becomes effective on July 28, 2016.
Amy White, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787-1665 or email at
The technical corrections in this rulemaking affect offshore operators, lessees, pipeline right-of-way holders, and permittees. The corrections are necessary to reflect accurate regulatory citations, add or change a few words for clarification, and revise section numbering. Also, regulatory text that was inadvertently removed in a 2013 regulatory update is being re-inserted where it belongs. These corrections will make the regulations easier to read, understand, and comprehend, but will not change the purpose, scope or effect of the regulations.
Because this rule makes no substantive change in any rule or requirement, BSEE for good cause finds that notice and public comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
This rulemaking will correct regulations in 30 CFR parts 203, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 280, 282, 290, and 291 to reflect the changes discussed below. The following table shows the current regulatory citation and what changes were made.
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant because it will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive Order (E.O.) directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. This rulemaking is consistent with the principles of E.O. 13563.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BSEE, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.
This final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The requirements will apply to all entities operating on the OCS.
This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The final rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. The rulemaking is not a governmental action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have federalism implications. This final rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this final rule will not affect that role. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
This final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and DOI's Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (Secretarial Order 3317, Amendment 2, December 31, 2013), we evaluated this final rule and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.
This final rule does not contain new information collection requirements, and a submission under the PRA is not required. Therefore, an information collection request is not being submitted to OMB for review and approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. BSEE has evaluated this rule under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Department's regulations implementing NEPA. This rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in that this rule is “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature. . . .” Further, BSEE has analyzed this rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215 and has concluded that this rule does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances.
In developing this final rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).
This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Indians—lands, Oil and gas exploration, Outer Continental Shelf, Sulphur.
Administrative practice and procedure, Oil and gas and sulphur exploration, Outer Continental Shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freedom of information, Oil and gas exploration, Outer Continental Shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Freedom of information, Intergovernmental relations, Oil and gas exploration, Outer Continental Shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Intergovernmental relations, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution, Outer Continental Shelf, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Oil and gas exploration, Outer Continental Shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Outer Continental Shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral royalties, Outer Continental Shelf, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) amends 30 CFR parts 203, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 280, 282, 290, and 291 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 396
(b) You must file all payments electronically through the
31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(b) * * *
(a) You must file all payments electronically through the Fees for Services page on the BSEE Web site at
(b) If you submitted an application or permit through eWell, you must use the interactive payment feature in that system, which directs you through Pay.gov to make a payment. It is recommended that you keep a copy of your payment confirmation receipt in the event that any questions arise regarding your transaction.
(d) You may inspect these documents at the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 45600 Woodland Rd, Sterling, VA 20166; phone: 1-844-259-4779; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
(e) American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI Standards, 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3439:
(g) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ANSI/ASME Codes,
(i) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM Standards, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959;
(j) American Welding Society (AWS), AWS Codes, 8669 NW 36 Street, #130, Miami, FL 33126;
(k) National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) International, NACE Standards, Park Ten Place, Houston, TX 77084;
(m) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland;
You must equip diesel engine air intakes with a device to shut down the diesel engine in the event of runaway. Diesel engines that are continuously attended must be equipped with remotely operated, manual, or automatic shutdown devices. Diesel engines that are not continuously attended must be equipped with automatic shutdown devices.
You must equip all units being used for well-workover operations that have both a traveling block and a crown block with a safety device that is designed to prevent the traveling block from striking the crown block. You must check the device for proper operation weekly and after each drill-line slipping operation. You must enter the results of the operational check in the operations log.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Each producing operator must, if practical, durably mark all of its above-water transfer points as of the date a pipeline begins service.
(iv) If adjoining producing and transporting operators cannot agree on a transfer point, the BSEE Regional Supervisor and the appropriate Department of Transportation (DOT) pipeline official may jointly determine the transfer point.
(4) The transfer point serves as a regulatory boundary. An operator may request that the BSEE Regional Supervisor grant an exception to this requirement for an individual facility or area. The Regional Supervisor, in consultation with the appropriate DOT pipeline official and affected parties, may grant the request.
(12) * * *
(ii) The Regional Supervisor will decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to grant the operator's request. In considering each petition, the Regional Supervisor will consult with the appropriate DOT pipeline official.
(13) * * *
(i) The operator's request must be in the form of a written petition to the appropriate DOT pipeline official and the BSEE Regional Supervisor.
(ii) The BSEE Regional Supervisor and the appropriate DOT pipeline official will decide how to act on this petition.
(b) * * * The proposed plan must include, for each project reservoir, a geologic and engineering overview and any additional information required by the BSEE Regional Supervisor. You also must submit Form BOEM-0127 to BOEM along with the supporting data specified in BOEM regulations, 30 CFR part 550, subpart K.
(a) The Regional Supervisor may require you to conduct development and production operations in a competitive reservoir under either a joint Competitive Reservoir Development Program submitted to BSEE or a unitization agreement. * * *
(c) If you conduct drilling or production operations in a reservoir determined competitive by the BSEE Regional Supervisor, you and the other affected lessees must submit for approval a joint Competitive Reservoir Development Program. You must submit the joint Competitive Reservoir Development Program within 90 days after the Regional Supervisor makes a final determination that the reservoir is competitive. The joint Competitive Reservoir Development Program must provide for the development and/or production of the reservoir. You may submit supplemental Competitive Reservoir Development Programs for the Regional Supervisor's approval.
(d) If you and the other affected lessees cannot reach an agreement on a joint Competitive Reservoir Development Program, submitted to BSEE within the approved period of time, each lessee must submit a separate Competitive Reservoir Development Program to the Regional Supervisor. The Regional Supervisor will hold a hearing to resolve differences in the separate Competitive Reservoir Development Programs. If the differences in the separate programs are not resolved at the hearing and the Regional Supervisor determines that unitization is necessary under § 250.1301(b), BSEE will initiate unitization under § 250.1304.
(b) * * *
(2) To stay the accrual of penalties, you must post a bond or other surety instrument, or demonstrate financial solvency, using the standards and requirements as prescribed in BOEM's regulations, 30 CFR part 550, subpart N. The posted amount must cover the unpaid principal and interest due for the Notice of Noncompliance, plus the amount of any penalties accrued before the date a stay becomes effective.
(b) * * *
(2) To stay the accrual of penalties, you must post a bond or other surety instrument, or demonstrate financial solvency, using the standards and requirements as prescribed in BOEM's
(b) * * *
(5) Section 12.5 Audit Frequency. You must have your SEMS program audited by an ASP within 2 years after initial implementation and every 3 years thereafter. The 3-year auditing cycle begins on the start date of each comprehensive audit (including the initial implementation audit) and ends on the start date of your next comprehensive audit.
(e) BSEE may verify that you undertook the corrective actions and that these actions effectively address the audit findings.
31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this part under 44 U.S.C. 3501
OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331
33 U.S.C. 1321.
(a) If you are the owner or operator of an oil handling, storage, or transportation facility, and it is located seaward of the coast line, you must submit an oil spill response plan (OSRP) to BSEE for approval. Your OSRP must demonstrate that you can respond quickly and effectively whenever oil is discharged from your facility. Refer to § 254.6 for the definitions of
(b) You must maintain a current OSRP for an abandoned facility until you physically remove or dismantle the facility or until the Chief, Oil Spill Preparedness Division (OSPD) notifies you in writing that a plan is no longer required.
(d) If you are in doubt as to whether you must submit a plan for an offshore facility or pipeline, you should check with the Chief, OSPD.
(e) If your facility is located landward of the coast line, but you believe your facility is sufficiently similar to OCS facilities that it should be regulated by BSEE, you may contact the Chief, OSPD, offer to accept BSEE jurisdiction over your facility, and request that BSEE seek from the agency with jurisdiction over your facility a relinquishment of that jurisdiction.
(a) You must submit, and BSEE must approve, an OSRP that covers each facility located seaward of the coast line before you may use that facility. To continue operations, you must operate the facility in compliance with the OSRP.
(b) Despite the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, you may operate your facility after you submit your OSRP while BSEE reviews it for approval. To operate a facility without an approved OSRP, you must certify in writing to the Chief, OSPD that you have the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge. The certification must show that you have ensured by contract, or other means approved by the Chief, OSPD, the availability of private personnel and equipment necessary to respond to the discharge. Verification from the organization(s) providing the personnel and equipment must accompany the certification. BSEE will not allow you to operate a facility for more than 2 years without an approved OSRP.
(a) Your OSRP may be for a single lease or facility or a group of leases or facilities. All the leases or facilities in your plan must have the same owner or operator (including affiliates) and must be located in the same BSEE Region (see definition of Regional OSRP in § 254.6).
(b) Regional OSRPs must address all the elements required for an OSRP in subpart B, or subpart D of this part, as appropriate.
(c) When developing a Regional OSRP, you may group leases or facilities subject to the approval of the Chief, OSPD, for the purposes of:
(1) Calculating response times;
(2) Determining quantities of response equipment;
(3) Conducting oil-spill trajectory analyses;
(4) Determining worst case discharge scenarios; and
(5) Identifying areas of special economic and environmental importance that may be impacted and the strategies for their protection.
(d) The Chief, OSPD, may specify how to address the elements of a Regional OSRP. The Chief, OSPD, also may require that Regional OSRPs contain additional information if necessary for compliance with appropriate laws and regulations.
You may reference information contained in other readily accessible documents in your OSRP. Examples of documents that you may reference are the National Contingency Plan (NCP), Area Contingency Plan (ACP), BSEE or BOEM environmental documents, and Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) documents that are readily accessible to the Chief, OSPD. You must ensure that the Chief, OSPD, possesses or is provided with copies of all OSRO documents you reference. You should contact the Chief, OSPD, if you want to know whether a reference is acceptable.
(a) The OSRP must provide for response to an oil spill from the facility. You must immediately carry out the provisions of the OSRP whenever there is a release of oil from the facility. You must also carry out the training, equipment testing, and periodic drills described in the OSRP, and these measures must be sufficient to ensure the safety of the facility and to mitigate or prevent a discharge or a substantial threat of a discharge.
(b) The OSRP must be consistent with the National Contingency Plan and the appropriate Area Contingency Plan(s).
(d) In addition to the requirements listed in this part, you must provide any other information the Chief, OSPD, requires for compliance with appropriate laws and regulations.
You must submit the number of copies of your OSRP that the appropriate BSEE regional office requires. If you prefer to use improved information technology such as electronic filing to submit your plan, ask the Chief, OSPD, for further guidance.
(a) Send OSRPs for facilities located seaward of the coast line of Alaska to: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Attention: Senior Analyst, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite #500, Anchorage, AK 99503-5823.
(b) Send OSRPs for facilities in the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Ocean to: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Attention: GOM Section Supervisor, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70123-2394.
(c) Send OSRPs for facilities in the Pacific Ocean (except seaward of the coast line of Alaska) to: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Attention: Senior Analyst, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 201, Camarillo, CA 93010-6002.
(a) You must divide your OSRP for OCS facilities into the sections specified in paragraph (b) of this section and explained in the other sections of this subpart. The OSRP must have an easily found marker identifying each section. You may use an alternate format if you include a cross reference table to identify the location of required sections. You may use alternate contents if you can demonstrate to the Chief, OSPD that they provide for equal or greater levels of preparedness.
(b) Your OSRP must include:
(1) Introduction and OSRP contents.
(a) You must review your OSRP at least every 2 years and submit all resulting modifications to the Chief, OSPD. If this review does not result in modifications, you must inform the Chief, OSPD, in writing that there are no changes.
(b) You must submit revisions to your OSRP for approval within 15 days whenever:
(1) A change occurs which significantly reduces your response capabilities;
(2) A significant change occurs in the worst case discharge scenario or in the type of oil being handled, stored, or transported at the facility;
(3) There is a change in the name(s) or capabilities of the oil spill removal organizations cited in the OSRP; or
(4) There is a significant change to the Area Contingency Plan(s).
(c) The Chief, OSPD, may require that you resubmit your OSRP if the OSRP has become outdated or if numerous revisions have made its use difficult.
(d) The Chief, OSPD, will periodically review the equipment inventories of OSRO's to ensure that sufficient spill removal equipment is available to meet the cumulative needs of the owners and operators who cite these organizations in their OSRPs.
(e) The Chief, OSPD, may require you to revise your OSRP if significant inadequacies are indicated by:
(1) Periodic reviews (described in paragraph (d) of this section);
(2) Information obtained during drills or actual spill responses; or
(3) Other relevant information the Chief, OSPD, obtained.
(a) You must exercise your entire OSRP at least once every 3 years (triennial exercise). You may satisfy this requirement by conducting separate exercises for individual parts of the OSRP over the 3-year period; you do not have to exercise your entire OSRP at one time.
(b) * * *
(2) An annual deployment exercise of response equipment identified in your OSRP that is staged at onshore locations. You must deploy and operate each type of equipment in each triennial period. However, it is not necessary to deploy and operate each individual piece of equipment.
(e) All records of spill-response exercises must be maintained for the complete 3-year exercise cycle. Records should be maintained at the facility or at a corporate location designated in the OSRP. Records showing that OSROs and oil spill removal cooperatives have deployed each type of equipment also must be maintained for the 3-year cycle.
31 U.S.C. 9701, 42 U.S.C. 6213, 43 U.S.C. 1334, Pub. L. 109-432.
(j) For Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) regulations, see 30 CFR chapter V.
43 U.S.C. 1334.
43 U.S.C. 1334.
(b) Send comments regarding any aspect of the collection of information under this part, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166.
(d) The Director may, at any time within the period prescribed for a suspension or temporary prohibition issued pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, require the lessee to submit a Delineation, Testing, or Mining Plan to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for approval in accordance with the requirements for the approval of such plans in part 582 of this title.
(e) * * *
(2) When the Director determines that measures are necessary, on the basis of the results of the studies conducted in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section and other information available to and identified by the Director, the lessee will be required to take appropriate measures to mitigate, avoid, or minimize the damage or potential damage on which the suspension or temporary prohibition is based. In choosing between alternative mitigation measures, the Director will balance the cost of the required measures against the reduction or potential reduction in damage or threat of damage or harm to life (including fish and other aquatic life), to property, to any mineral deposits (in areas leased or not leased), to the National security or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or human environment. When deemed appropriate by the Director, the lessee must submit to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management a revised Delineation, Testing, or Mining Plan that incorporates the mitigation measures required by the Director.
(d) * * *
(2) A lessee shall, on request by the Director, furnish food, quarters, and transportation for BSEE representatives to inspect its facilities. Upon request, you will be reimbursed by BSEE for the actual costs that you incur as a result of providing transportation to BSEE representatives. In addition, you will be reimbursed for the actual costs that you incur for providing food and quarters for a BSEE representative's stay of more than 12 hours. You must submit an invoice for reimbursement within 90 days of the inspection.
5 U.S.C. 305; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(b) * * *
(1) You must pay electronically through the Fees for Services page on the BSEE Web site at
31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(a) You must pay the processing fee electronically through the Fees for Services page on the BSEE Web site at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is updating the special local regulations and permanent safety zones in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone for annual recurring marine events. When enforced, these special local regulations and safety zones will restrict vessels from portions of water areas during certain annually recurring events. The special local regulations and safety zones are intended to expedite public notification and ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with certain maritime events.
This rule is effective June 6, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Chief Marine Science Technician Chris Bains, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone (207) 347-5003, or email
On February 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce administrative overhead, expedite public notification of events, and ensure the protection of the maritime public during marine events in the Sector Northern New England area.
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 issues this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. This rule will update the tables of annual recurring events in the existing regulation for the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. The tables provide the event name, sponsor, and type, as well as approximate times, dates, and locations of the events. Advanced public notification of specific times, dates, regulated areas, and enforcement periods for each event will be provided through appropriate means, which may include, the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and a Notice of Enforcement published in the
As noted above, we received no comments to the NPRM published February 25, 2016. The single change from the NPRM is the addition of dates to the Lake Champlain Dragon Boat Race held in Burlington, VT. The Coast Guard has added two dates in July, as well as an additional date in August to the table of Special Local regulations in 33 CFR 100.120
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders Executive Orders) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reason: the Coast Guard is only modifying an existing regulation to account for new information.
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 regulated waters may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This rule would 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 Executive Order. 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
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this 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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves water activities including swimming events and fireworks displays. They maybe categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)(Safety Zones) and (34)(h)(Special Local Regulations) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the Route-197 Bridge (Maine-Kennebec Bridge), across Kennebec River between Richmond and Dresden, Maine. The drawbridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in 2015 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
This rule is effective June 6, 2016.
To view documents in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, Coast Guard, telephone 617-223-8619, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Route-197-Bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.525(b) was removed from the Kennebec River and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2015. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and should be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes restrictions that have no further use or value.
We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Route-197 Bridge (Maine Kennebec Bridge) was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2015. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.525, that pertains to the former drawbridge.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.525 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes the paragraph (b) of the regulation governing the Route-197 Bridge since the bridge has been replace with a fixed bridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedule in 33 CFR 117.525 that govern the remaining active drawbridge on the Kennebec River.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the bridge was removed from the waterway and no longer operates as a drawbridge. The removal of the operation schedule from 33 CFR part 117 will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small
For the reasons stated in section V.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 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.
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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draw of the Carlton Bridge, mile 14.0, between Bath and Woolwich shall operate as follows:
(a) From May 15 through September 30 the draw shall open on signal; except that, from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
(b) From October 1 through May14 the draw shall open on signal; except that, from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw shall open on signal after a twenty-four hours notice is given from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Saturday and Sunday, after an eight-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).
The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.
If you have questions on this notice of
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin for annual fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone at specified times from June 11, 2016 until September 10, 2016. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks displays. During the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.935 will be enforced at specified times from June 11, 2016 through September 10, 2016.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email CWO Mark Stevens, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7188, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the following times for the following events:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
This safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Beginning at 43°02′00″ N., 087°53′53″ W.; then south to 43°01′44″ N., 087°53′53″ W.; then east to 43°01′44″ N., 087°53′25″ W.; then north to 43°02′00″ N., 087°53′25″ W.; then west to the point of origin (NAD 83). As specified in 33 CFR 165.935, all vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone when it is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of each participating swimmer during the Lady Liberty Sharkfest Swim. The safety zone is needed to protect the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with swim events taking place in a high vessel traffic area. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New York.
This rule is effective from 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on July 16, 2016.
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 R.J. Sampert, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, 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 NPRM with respect to this rule because it would be impractical and contrary to the public interest. The event sponsor was late in submitting the marine event application. This late submission did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM and receive comments, making that impracticable and contrary to the public interest in immediate action to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area.
For the same reasons, 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 New York (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with swim events occurring in high traffic areas of the Upper New York Harbor on July 16, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of swimmers. This rule is needed to protect maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with the swim event until the conclusion of the event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from at 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on July 16, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 yards of participating swimmers for the Lady Liberty Sharkfest Swim. The duration of the zone is intended to protect maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with swim events taking place in a high vessel traffic area. 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 order related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Upper New York Harbor in vicinity of Ellis and Liberty Islands for 2.5 hours and during a time of day when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels 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 any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 2.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of participating swimmers for the Lady Liberty Sharkfest Swim. 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 will be available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF channel 16 or by phone at (718) 354-4353 (Sector New York Command Center). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule with requests for comments.
The Coast Guard is amending and updating its annual and recurring safety zones that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River area of responsibility (AOR). This regulation informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a safety zone. Through this interim rule the current list of recurring safety zones is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place; and we are requesting comments on additional changes necessary to update the permanent list of recurring safety zones in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. When these safety zones are enforced, vessel traffic is restricted from specified areas. Additionally, this one rulemaking project serves to provide notice of the known recurring safety zones throughout the year.
This rule is effective June 11, 2016. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 27, 2016.
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 LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email
On April 8, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update (81 FR 20592). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 9, 2016, we received information from event sponsors providing updated locations for 2 of the events listed in the NPRM. Therefore, we are requesting comments through this interim rule related to these two location changes before issuing a final rule. These changes are discussed further below.
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 (COTP) Upper Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with the recurring events will cause safety concerns. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zones, before, during, and after the scheduled events.
As noted above, during the comment period for our NPRM that published April 8, 2016, we received information from event sponsors updating the location for two events. This information lead to the need to propose changes to the location details for two of the recurring safety zones listed in the NPRM. Therefore, there are two new proposed changes to the regulatory text of this rule that are different from the proposed rule in the NPRM. The first corrects the location of event number 14; Prairie du Chien Area Chamber Fireworks, taking place annually on one day during the second weekend of July. The location listed in the proposed rule was Upper Mississippi River mile marker 633.8 to 634.2; the correct location for this event is Upper Mississippi River mile marker 635.2 to 635.7. The second corrects the location of event number 31; Hermann 4th of July event taking place one day over the 4th of July weekend. The location listed in the proposed rule was Missouri River mile marker 99.0 to 98.0; the correct location for this event is Missouri River mile marker 97.0 to 98.0.
All other changes, removals, and additions proposed under the NPRM remain the same as listed in the proposed rule. This interim rule establishes recurring safety zones to restrict vessel transit into and through specified areas to protect spectators, mariners, and other persons and property from potential hazards presented during certain events taking place in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. This interim rule amends, updates, and replaces Table 2 in 33 CFR 165.801, and requests comments on two additional changes as discussed above before issuing a final rule. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing safety zones limiting access to certain area under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this interim rule or the preceding NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Raritan Bay near Perth Amboy, NJ for a fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. This rule is intended to restrict all vessels from a portion of Raritan Bay during the fireworks event unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2016.
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, Marine Science Technician Daniel Vazquez, U.S. Coast Guard; Telephone (718) 354-4154, 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
The location of the event is centrally located between both Perth Amboy and South Amboy which is more advantageous for the event spectators and sponsors. In addition, it has less of an impact on vessel traffic within Raritan Bay because it is out of the major shipping lanes.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of Raritan Bay near Perth Amboy, NJ. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP New York or a designated representative during the enforcement of the temporary safety zone. Entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP New York or a designated representative.
Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the COTP New York has determined that fireworks launches in close proximity to water crafts pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The combination of increased number of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris, especially burning debris falling on passing or spectator vessels, has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This temporary safety zone will restrict vessels from a portion of Raritan Bay around the location of the fireworks launch platform before, during, and immediately after the fireworks display.
The Coast Guard determined that this regulated area will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic due to its temporary nature and limited size and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the navigable waters outside of the regulated area.
Consistent with 33 CFR 165.7, the Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Coast Guard's implementation of this temporary safety zone will be of short duration and is designed to minimize the impact to vessel traffic on the navigable waters. This temporary safety zone will only be enforced for approximately 135 minutes. Due to the location, vessels will be able to transit around the safety zone in a safe manner.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by 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 Executive Order 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
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2) No vessels, except for fireworks barge and accompanying vessels, will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the COTP.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF channel 16 or 718-354-4353 (Sector New York command center) to obtain permission to do so.
(5) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas during the effective dates and times, unless authorized by COTP or a designated representative.
(6) The COTP or a designated representative may delay or terminate any marine event in this subpart at any time it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or property.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the finding of attainment and approving the attainment plan submitted on December 12, 2012 by the Oregon Department of
This final rule is effective July 6, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0005. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information please contact Justin Spenillo at (206) 553-6125,
On April 13, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ on December 12, 2012 and to make a finding of attainment for the Klamath Falls PM
The EPA is finalizing the finding of attainment and approving the attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ on December 12, 2012 for the Klamath Falls PM
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 5, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document corrects an omission in the final rule document published on May 19, 2016, announcing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) approval in part and disapproval in part of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard. The correction of this omission does not change the EPA's final action to approve in part and disapprove in part these SIP revisions.
This correcting amendment is effective on June 20, 2016.
Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3856,
On March 22, 2016 (81 FR 15200), the EPA proposed to approve in part and to disapprove in part SIP revisions submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on December 27, 2012, and supplemented on December 3, 2015, to address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). More specifically, in the March 22, 2016 proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve Arizona's SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 and to disapprove Arizona's SIP with respect to the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4.
The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because the action codified herein was already subject to a 30-day comment period beginning with publication of the related proposed rule on March 22, 2016, and as noted above, no comments were submitted. Thus, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment.
The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for the regulatory text added herein to become effective on the same date as the final rulemaking for which the regulatory text was inadvertently omitted. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule merely adds regulatory text codifying the partial approval and partial disapproval action that the EPA published on May 19, 2016, which is 30 days from the date on which this rule will become effective. The May 19, 2016 final rule thus provided sufficient notice and time for affected parties to take appropriate action to the extent any action is necessary to comply with the rule. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for the regulatory text codified herein and associated with the May 19, 2016 final rule to become effective on same date as the May 19, 2016 final rule becomes effective (
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely adds regulatory text inadvertently omitted from a previous final rule and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
This rule also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule merely corrects an inadvertent omission of regulatory text for a previously published final rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In addition, this rule does not involve technical standards, thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule also does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 5, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(174) The following plan was submitted on December 3, 2015 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(o)
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
Final rule.
The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Commission) is updating its regulations to reflect a change of agency location. The Commission has moved from 111 East Broadway, Suite 310 to 230 South 500 East, Suite 230 in Salt Lake City, Utah.
This rule is effective June 6, 2016.
Diane Simmons at 801-524-3146, or email to
The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is an independent Federal agency established by the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992. The Act set terms and conditions for completing the Central Utah Project, which diverts stores and delivers large quantities of water from numerous Utah rivers to meet the needs of central Utah's citizens. The Commission is responsible for planning, funding, and implementing projects that benefit fish, wildlife, and related recreation resources in order to offset impacts caused by the Central Utah Project, and other Federal water
The Commission has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply to this rulemaking. Because updating the agency's address is a matter of “agency organization, procedure, and practice,” it is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). The Commission has also determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The public benefits from having the regulations reflect the agency's correct physical address so it has accurate information on how to contact the agency. The use of the incorrect address could result in correspondence not reaching the agency.
The Commission has determined that making changes to its regulations to reflect its correct address does not trigger any requirements under the procedural statutes and Executive Orders that govern rulemaking procedures.
Organization and functions.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 and section 301(g)(3)(A) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act, amend part 10000 of Chapter III of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 551
(a) The principle place of business and offices of the agency are located at 230 South 500 East, Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102-2045. * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the National Deaf Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) as a pilot program for one additional year. The NDBEDP provides up to $10 million annually to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. Extending the pilot program enables the NDBEDP to continue providing communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind without interruption while the Commission considers whether to adopt rules to govern a permanent NDBEDP.
Effective July 1, 2016.
Rosaline Crawford, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at phone: (202) 418-2075 or email:
This is a summary of the Commission's Order (
This
1. In this
2. The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), 47 U.S.C. 620, directed the Commission to establish rules to provide up to $10 million annually from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. In accordance with this directive, the Commission established the NDBEDP as a two-year pilot program, with an option to extend this program for an additional year. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) launched the
3. To ensure the uninterrupted administration of the NDBEDP until the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding and the establishment of a permanent program for the delivery of communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind, the Commission extends the existing NDBEDP pilot program rules for one additional year, until June 30, 2017. The Commission adopts this extension because it anticipates that this rulemaking proceeding and the implementation of new rules that may result will not be completed by June 30, 2016, when the rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program are scheduled to expire.
4. Many individuals who have received equipment and training under the NDBEDP have reported that this program has vastly improved their daily lives, significantly enhancing their ability to live independently and expanding their educational and employment opportunities. Extending the pilot program will serve the public interest because it will allow a seamless transition between the pilot and permanent programs. This extension will also provide greater programmatic certainty and stability to entities that are currently certified to participate in the NDBEDP in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
5.
6. The Commission will send a copy of the
7. The Commission will not send a copy of the Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, because the Commission adopted no rules therein.
8. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 719 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 620, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Technical amendments.
NASA is making technical amendments to the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, via email at
As part of NASA's retrospective review of existing regulations pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, NASA conducted a review of it regulations and published a final rule in the
• Subpart 1849.5 is removed in its entirety. Section 1849.5 titled
• Section 1852.214-71 is revised to correct a paragraph designation.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1849 and 1852 are amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule amends regulations to allow U.S. vessels authorized to fish under an alternative international fisheries management regime (
This rule is effective on June 6, 2016.
You may view this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0036, e-Rulemaking Portal at
Chris Fanning, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4198.
NMFS is issuing a final rule under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended (TCA). 16 U.S.C. 951
Paragraph 12 of Resolution C-02-03 provides opportunities for up to 32 U.S. vessels authorized to fish in other areas of the Pacific Ocean under an alternative international fisheries management regime to fish a single trip per year in the EPO even if the vessels are not listed on the IATTC's Vessel Register. Vessels shall be authorized to fish in the EPO provided that the fishing activity of any such vessels in the EPO is limited to a single trip not to exceed 90 days in one calendar year, the vessels do not possess a Dolphin Mortality Limit pursuant to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and the vessels carry an approved observer. The current regulations implementing Resolution C-02-03, issued on April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19004), explicitly reference South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT) licenses as the only licenses that qualify vessels for the single-trip exception. At the time of the 2005 final rule, the SPTT was the predominant “alternative international fisheries management regime” that provided for the authorization of fishing by U.S. purse seine vessels in the western Pacific Ocean. The WCPF Convention entered into force for the United States in 2007.
Under regulations implementing the decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC), vessels used to commercially fish highly migratory species on the high seas in the WCPF Convention Area must be permitted to do so by NMFS (see 50 CFR 300.212). Because of the large overlap between the WCPFC Convention Area and the SPTT Area, vessels that fish under the SPTT also are typically permitted by NMFS under 50 CFR 300.212 to fish on the high seas in the WCPF Convention Area. These vessels are subject to regulations implementing conservation and management measures adopted by the WCPFC, the organization that carries out the management regime established under the WCPF Convention.
SPTT licenses were not issued for the period starting January 1, 2016, through early March 2016, and it is unclear if they will be issued beyond 2016. Because of the wording of the implementing regulations, U.S. vessels could not use the single-trip EPO exception during the period of non-issuance of SPTT licenses. This final rule amends 50 CFR 300.22(b)(1) to allow U.S. vessels authorized to fish in areas of the Pacific Ocean other than the EPO under another alternative international fisheries management regime (
This rule also revises 50 CFR 216.24(b)(6)(iii)(C) to: remove and replace the reference to “South Pacific Tuna Treaty” to conform to § 300.22(b) described above, and correct two cross-references to § 300.22(b). Also in that paragraph, the reference to the Southwest Regional Administrator, NMFS, is changed to “Administrator, West Coast Region” to reflect the merger of the former Southwest Region into a new West Coast Region and assumption of the responsibilities of the former Southwest Regional Administrator by the new West Coast Regional Administrator.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act, as amended, and other applicable laws.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action. Replacing “South Pacific Tuna Treaty” in the regulations with the exact wording from IATTC Resolution C-02-03 “alternative international tuna purse seine fisheries management regime” is a minor, technical correction that reflects the original intention of the regulation. The same vessels operating in the Western Pacific that were intended to be able to use the single-trip exception under the original wording would have access to the exception under the revised wording, and no vessels are added or removed from eligibility. Furthermore, because the purse seine fishery for tuna is active now in the Eastern Pacific, the existing reference to “South Pacific Tuna Treaty” in the absence of the issuance of SPTT licenses is an impediment to lawful fishing by U.S. vessels under Resolution C-02-03. Therefore, providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 216 and 300 are amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) The owner or managing owner of a purse seine vessel that is permitted and authorized under an alternative international tuna purse seine fisheries management regime in the Pacific Ocean must submit the vessel assessment fee, as established by the IATTC or other approved observer program, to the Administrator, West Coast Region, prior to obtaining an observer and entering the ETP to fish. Consistent with § 300.22(b)(1) of this title, this class of purse seine vessels is not required to be listed on the Vessel Register under § 300.22(b)(4) of this title in order to purse seine for tuna in the ETP during a single fishing trip per calendar year of 90 days or less. Payment of the vessel assessment fee must be consistent with the fee for active status on the Vessel Register under § 300.22(b)(4)(i) of this title.
16 U.S.C. 951
(b) * * *
(1)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
On May 2, 2016, NMFS published a final rule to implement fishery management measures for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries off the coast of the states of Washington, Oregon, and California under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council). This correction changes the minimum size table for the commercial salmon fishery from Point Arena to Pigeon Point, CA, and the description of the tribal area and boundaries for the treaty Indian fisheries for the Quileute Nation; these were incorrect in the original rule.
This correction is effective June 6, 2016, until the effective date of the 2017 management measures, which will be published in the
Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.
On May 2, 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 26157) that implemented the fishery management measures for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries off the coasts of the states of Washington, Oregon, and California under the jurisdiction of the Council. Subsequent to filing this rule with the Office of the Federal Register, two typographical errors were noted.
On page 26164, the table under the subheading “B. Minimum Size,” for the area “Point Arena to Pigeon Point,” two time periods are listed that incorrectly exclude the date September 1. This is inconsistent with the management measures described in the related text within the rule. Additionally, these size restrictions are intended to be consistent with the commercial salmon fisheries managed by the State of California. This rule corrects the table to be consistent with the management measures described in the text of the final rule, and as adopted and recommended by
On page 26169, in the first column, under the subheading “C.1. Tribe and Area Boundaries,” in the fourth paragraph, an incorrect latitude was provided for the Queets River. This latitude is intended to be consistent with usual and accustomed fishing areas established by a recent court ruling (
The states, tribes, and Pacific Fishery Management Council staff have been notified of these corrections. These corrections have been made in the fishery booklet provided to the public by NMFS West Coast Region. Therefore, these corrections are anticipated by the public and the regulatory agencies and their implementation will cause no harm.
In the
1. On page 26164, under the subheading “B. Minimum Size,” the table for minimum size limits in the 2016 commercial salmon fisheries is corrected in its entirety to read as follows:
2. On page 26169, first column, under the subheading “C.1. Tribe and Area Boundaries,” the fourth paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
QUILEUTE—That portion of the FMA between 48°10′00″ N. lat. (Cape Alava.) and 47°31′42″ N. lat. (Queets River) and east of 125°44′00″ W. long.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to public interest. Notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this action corrects inadvertent errors in regulations for a fishery that opened on May 1, and immediate notice of the error and correction is necessary to prevent confusion among participants in the fishery that could result from the existing conflict between state and tribal regulations and the final rule. This error was noticed by NMFS on April 29, 2016, after the final rule had been filed with the Office of the Federal Register. To effectively correct the error, this correction must be done as soon as possible, as the tribal fisheries commenced May 1. There is not sufficient time for a notice and comment rulemaking as the fishery has begun. In addition, this action makes only minor changes that the states and tribes are already aware of.
This correction will not affect the results of analyses conducted to support management decisions in the salmon fishery nor change the total catch of salmon. No change in operating practices in the fishery is required. For the same reasons, the AA has determined that good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 773-773k; 1801
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations to implement the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015, which establishes a new leave category, to be known as “disabled veteran leave,” available during a 12-month period beginning on the first day of employment to be used by an employee who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability. In addition, we are proposing to rescind two obsolete regulations.
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN number “3206-AN31,” using either of the following methods:
Doris Rippey by telephone at (202) 606-2858 or by email at
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing proposed regulations to implement the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-75, November 5, 2015) (hereafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act adds section 6329 to title 5, United States Code, which establishes a new leave category, to be known as “disabled veteran leave.” This new leave category is an entitlement for any employee who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more to use disabled veteran leave during a 12-month period beginning on the first day of employment for the purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability. Disabled veteran leave available to an eligible employee may not exceed 104 hours for a regular full-time employee. Disabled veteran leave not used during this 12-month period may not be carried over to subsequent years and will be forfeited. By law, disabled veteran leave is available only to covered employees who are hired on or after November 5, 2016.
Section 2(d) of the Act gives OPM authority to regulate the disabled veteran leave provision. The regulations on disabled veteran leave will be located in subpart M of part 630 (Absence and Leave) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. They will replace the regulations currently found in subpart M, Reservist Leave Bank Program. The Reservist Leave Bank Program was authorized by Public Law 102-25, April 6, 1991. Under that program, OPM established a leave bank that distributed annual leave to returning Federal employees who were called to active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces during the Persian Gulf War. Employees were allowed to contribute unused accrued annual leave to the leave bank during an open season, which ran from July 13, 1991, until August 10, 1991. The authority is no longer needed, since Federal agencies were required to distribute the donated annual leave by the end of November 1991.
OPM is also proposing to rescind 5 CFR 630.310, Scheduling of annual leave by employees determined necessary for Year 2000 computer conversion efforts. The regulations at 5 CFR 630.310 provided that year 2000 computer conversion efforts were deemed an exigency of the public business for the purpose of restoring annual leave to any employee who forfeited annual leave under 5 U.S.C. 6304 at the beginning of leave year 2000 because the agency determined the employee's services were required during the Year 2000 computer conversion. The forfeited annual leave was deemed to have been scheduled in advance for the purpose of 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(1)(B) and § 630.308. This authority is no longer needed because the regulations at 5 CFR 630.310(a) provided that the exigency of the public business for Year 2000 computer conversion efforts terminated on January 31, 2000.
There are several pieces of legislative history that provide additional information on the intent of Congress when enacting the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015, including—
• The Congressional Record for the House, H6268-H6269, September 28, 2015;
• The Congressional Record for the Senate, S6085-S6088, July 28, 2015;
• House Report 114-180, Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (a report issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform to accompany H.R. 313, ordered to be printed June 25, 2015); and
• Senate Report 114-89, Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (a report issued by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to accompany S. 242, ordered to be printed July 23, 2015).
Section 2(c) of the Act provides that its amendments will apply to employees hired on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of the Act. Since the Act was enacted on November 5, 2015, the effective date is November 5, 2016. Therefore, if an employee is hired on or after November 5, 2016, and is otherwise eligible, the employee may be granted disabled veteran leave during the 12-month eligibility period that begins on the employee's first day of employment, which can occur no earlier than November 5, 2016.
In order to implement the Act, OPM is proposing to replace Subpart M, Reservist Leave Bank, in part 630 (Absences and Leave) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, with a new Subpart M, Disabled Veteran Leave. A section-
Section 630.1301 addresses the purpose of the proposed regulations—
Section 630.1302 provides that subpart M applies to an employee who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent or more, subject to the conditions specified in subpart M. It also notes that subpart M does not apply to employees of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, since they are covered by regulations issued by the Postmaster General. Section 630.1302 also states that subpart M applies only to an employee whose is hired on or after November 5, 2016.
Section 630.1303 provides definitions of terms for purposes of subpart M.
The term “12-month period” in 5 U.S.C. 6329(a) is not defined in law. In the regulations, we are using the term “12-month eligibility period” and making clear that it refers to the continuous 12-month period that begins on the first day of employment. We are also making clear in the definition that, if an employee was eligible (or is later determined to have been eligible) for disabled veteran leave while previously employed by the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission and subsequently commences employment covered by subpart M, the 12-month eligibility period is the period that began on the first day of employment with the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission (as determined under regulations issued by the Postmaster General to implement 5 U.S.C. 6329).
The 12-month eligibility period is fixed based on the “first day of employment,” which triggers the start of the 12-month clock. (See discussion of the definition of “first day of employment” below.) There is only one 12-month eligibility period for any employee during his or her Federal civilian career, since there is only one “first” day of employment. The date of the first day of employment may be established retroactively after the Veterans Benefits Administration has made a disability rating determination, which could mean that the employee was not able to use disabled veteran leave during part or all of the 12-month eligibility period. In that case, the employee will be allowed to retroactively substitute disabled veteran leave for other leave used for medical treatment of a qualifying service-connected disability, as provided in proposed § 630.1306(c).
We provide that the term
We define
Under 5 U.S.C. 2105(c), an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality (NAFI) under the jurisdiction of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) that is conducted for the comfort, pleasure, contentment, and mental and physical improvement of personnel in the armed forces is “deemed not an employee” for the purpose of laws administered by OPM, except for certain listed exceptions. Section 6329 is not covered by any listed exception. Since the Act defines the term “employee” to be an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 and since OPM administers section 6329, NAFI employees identified in section 2105(c) are not covered by section 6329 and are not entitled to disabled veteran leave under that section.
Section 6239(a) provides that disabled veteran leave is available to an eligible employee during the 12-month period “beginning on the first day of employment.” By regulation, we are defining the terms
We are defining
We also note in the definition of
In order to define
Since the
The term
The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress was focused on the most common scenario, addressing “new” employees who begin their Federal careers with zero hours of sick leave. (See House Report 114-180 and Senate Report 114-89.) However, the law itself does not exclude those with past Federal civilian service. Thus, OPM is not required to interpret “first day of employment” to mean a person's first ever appointment with the Federal Government. Some individuals could have small amounts of past Federal service before military service, and we do not believe that Congress would have intended to automatically disqualify them from receiving disabled veteran leave benefits. Thus, the proposed regulations would cover certain reappointments as triggering the first day of employment, which in turn triggers the 12-month eligibility period to use disabled veteran leave. At the same time, given that Congress intended the 104-hour leave benefit for those with an initial balance of zero sick leave hours, any sick leave restored to an employee's credit upon reappointment will be taken into account in determining the amount of disabled veteran leave that should be credited. (See proposed § 630.1305(d).)
While we are defining
We are also proposing that the term
As stated in our description of proposed § 630.1302 (Applicability), the provisions of section 6329 apply only to a qualifying employee hired on or after November 5, 2016. (See section 6329(c).) If a veteran with a qualifying service-connected disability is already a Federal employee as of November 4, 2016, that veteran would not qualify for disabled veteran leave unless he or she has a qualifying hiring event in the future.
Although many veterans may receive treatment for their service-connected disabilities by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), others may seek treatment from other healthcare providers. Therefore, we define
Section 6329(a) requires that disabled veteran leave be used solely for the purpose of undergoing medical treatment of a qualifying service-connected disability. As a means of verification, section 6329(c) provides that an employee using disabled veteran leave must submit to the employing agency certification that the employee will (or has) used the leave for purposes of being furnished treatment for the disability. It further provides that OPM is authorized to prescribe the “form and manner” that this certification takes. While an employee's self-certification will always be required, we are proposing in § 630.1307 that the agency, at its discretion, may additionally require a medical certificate to support an employee's use of disabled veteran leave. We are defining
Disabled veteran leave is only available to employees with a service-connected disability that meets the requirements of the statute, which provides that the disability is rated at 30 percent or more. We define
The definitions of the terms
We are defining
The term
Finally, we are proposing a definition of the term
The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes—
• active duty;
• any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; and
• any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died—
○ from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; or
○ from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident occurring during such training.”
Section 630.1304(a) provides that an employee with a qualifying service-connected disability is eligible for disabled veteran leave under subpart M, which is available for use during the employee's 12-month eligibility period. For any employee, there will be only one such period under section 6329 during his or her career.
Section 630.1304(b) addresses the employee's responsibility to provide documentation from the Veterans Benefits Administration certifying the qualifying service-connected disability to the agency. This certification is used by the agency to determine an employee's eligibility for disabled veteran leave. Since disabled veteran leave is only available during an eligible employee's first 12 months after employment, it is important that agencies be able to identify as soon as possible whether an employee is entitled to the benefit. An agency can only do so if it has received the proper documentation/certification. Employees should, when possible, provide the necessary documentation upon employment. For those who have not yet received such certifying documentation from the Veterans Benefits Administration, the employee should provide it to the agency as soon as practicable after he or she receives it.
Section 630.1304(c) allows for the possibility that an employee may submit certifying documentation at a later time, including after a period of absence for medical treatment. In that case, disabled leave may be provided retroactively, as described in § 630.1306(c). A delay in the employee providing certifying documentation to the employing agency does not affect the dates of the 12-month eligibility period, since that period is fixed by statute based on the first day of employment.
Section 630.1304(d) addresses situations in which a veteran's condition(s) improves such that the employee's disability rating is reduced or discontinued resulting in the employee no longer having a qualifying service-connected disability. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the employee to notify the agency of the change in rating. Since the requirements of the statutory entitlement will no longer be met, the employee will no longer be entitled to disabled veteran leave as of the effective date of the change in rating. Any unused disabled veteran leave to such an employee's credit as of the effective date of the change in rating is forfeited. The rating change has only prospective effect. It does not invalidate the use of disabled veteran leave prior to the effective date of the rating change. (See also § 630.1308(b).)
Section 630.1305 addresses an agency's responsibilities regarding the crediting of disabled veteran leave.
For regular full-time employees, agencies must credit 104 hours of disabled veteran leave to the employee's disabled veteran leave account, except as otherwise provided in § 630.1305. We are proposing special crediting rules for employees with part-time, seasonal, or uncommon tours of duty, which are found in paragraphs (a)-(c) of 630.1305.
Section 6329(b)(1) states that disabled veteran leave “may not exceed 104 hours.” Based on the Act's legislative history, which stated that the intent of the statute was to provide disabled veterans “with immediate access to up to 13 days for sick leave,” it is clear that Congress was focused on regular full-time employees. (See page H6268 of the House Congressional Record, September 28, 2015.) The 104 hours was based on the amount of sick leave hours a regular full-time employee would normally accrue in a 12-month period (4 hours × 26 biweekly pay periods = 104 hours or 13 days). (See page 2 of House Committee Report 114-180 and page 2 of Senate Committee Report 114-89.) While full-time employees with a standard 40-hour weekly tour generally accrue 104 hours of sick leave in a leave year, that is not true for employees with part-time, seasonal, or uncommon tours of duty. (See 5 CFR 630.201 and 630.210 for a description of uncommon tours of duty that are more than 80 hours in a biweekly pay period.) These proposed regulations therefore provide that disabled veteran leave be proportionally adjusted for employees with part-time, seasonal, or uncommon tours of duty. For each type of schedule, a disabled veteran leave benefit would be derived to achieve a number of hours that is proportionally equivalent to 104 hours for a regular full-time employee. Under this approach, the value of the disabled veteran leave benefit as a percentage of projected total annual hours in the work schedule would be consistent across various types of schedules. This
Section 630.1305(d) addresses the offset of the 104-hour leave benefit (or proportional equivalent) for employees who have a balance of sick leave on the first day of employment that starts the 12-month eligibility period. Based on House and Senate committee reports, the intent of Congress was to provide 104 hours of disabled veteran leave to full-time employees who begin their Federal careers with a zero sick leave balance. Section 6329(b)(1) states that disabled veteran leave “may not exceed 104 hours.” It does not require the crediting of 104 hours.
As explained earlier, we have proposed regulating that certain employees who have past Federal civilian service may be eligible for disabled veteran leave. Such employees may have sick leave to their credit upon reemployment or return to civilian duty following military service. This specific circumstance was not anticipated or addressed in the House and Senate committee reports. Thus, OPM is using its regulatory authority to carry out section 6329 and its purposes by providing that any sick leave to the credit of such employees upon the first day of employment must be used to offset (reduce) the 104-hour disabled veteran leave benefit (or proportional equivalent). For example if a regular full-time employee is reemployed, qualifies for the disabled veteran leave benefit, and is recredited with 30 hours of sick leave, the employee's disabled veteran leave would be credited at 74 hours (104 hours minus 30 hours of recredited sick leave).
Section 630.1305(e) addresses the special circumstance in which a Federal agency and its employees are not subject to chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, based on another statutory authority (
Section 630.1306(a) provides, as required by 5 U.S.C. 6329, that disabled veteran leave may only be used for the medical treatment of an employee's qualifying service-connected disability. Disabled veteran leave must be distinguished from sick leave, which can be used if an employee is incapacitated for the performance of his or her duties by physical or mental illness, injury, pregnancy, or childbirth (see 5 CFR 630.401(a)(2)). Such use of sick leave does not require that the employee undergo any specific medical treatment related to the incapacity. However, the disabled veteran leave benefit requires the benefit to be used for medical treatment as it relates to the employee's qualifying service-connected disability. The proposed regulations provide that the medical treatment may include a period of rest, but only if the period of rest is specifically ordered by the health care provider as part of a prescribed course of treatment for the qualifying service-connected disability. This means that an employee could not, for example, contact his or her manager to request a day of disabled veteran leave to rest because the employee believes he or she is incapacitated due to the service-connected disability. In such a circumstance, sick leave would be the appropriate choice.
Section 630.1306(b) specifies the requirements for an employee's application to use disabled veteran leave. In compliance with the law, the application must include the employee's personal self-certification that the requested leave will be (or was) used for purposes of being furnished medical treatment for a qualifying service-connected disability. Section 630.1306(b) also lays out the requirement to request the leave in advance, unless the need for the leave is critical and not foreseeable.
Section 630.1306(c) addresses the ability to substitute the disabled veteran leave retroactively for other leave or paid time off that was used for treatment of a qualifying service-connected disability during the 12-month eligibility period. For various reasons, an employee may not have provided the required certification of his or her qualifying service-connected disability before a period of absence for medical treatment of such disability (
Section 630.1307(a) provides that an agency may require an employee to provide to the agency a signed written medical certification issued by a health care provider to support each use of disabled veteran leave. Section 630.1307(b) describes what information a health care provider may be required to include in the medical certification. Section 630.1307(c) addresses the deadlines for submitting a medical certification and what action an agency may take if the medical certification is not submitted within the required timeframes.
Section 630.1308(a) provides that an employee forfeits any disabled veteran leave to his or her credit if it is not used during the 12-month eligibility period.
Section 630.1308(b) provides that, if, during the 12-month eligibility period, a change in an employee's disability rating causes the employee to no longer have a qualifying service-connected disability, any disabled veteran leave to the employee's credit must be forfeited.
Section 630.1308(c) addresses the transfer of disabled veteran leave when an employee transfers between agencies without a break in employment during the 12-month eligibility period.
Section 630.1308(d) addresses the recrediting of disabled veteran leave when an employee has an unused balance of disabled veteran leave at the time of a break in employment but returns to employment during the 12-month eligibility period. It also addresses the responsibilities of the losing agency to provide information to the gaining agency.
Section 630.1308(e) provides that an employee may not receive a lump-sum
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Government employees.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend part 630 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 6311; § 630.205 also issued under Pub. L. 108-411, 118 Stat 2312; § 630.301 also issued under Pub. L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410 and Pub. L. 108-411, 118 Stat 2312; § 630.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a); §§ 630.306 and 630.308 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(3), Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2722, and Pub. L. 103-337, 108 Stat. 2663; subpart D also issued under Pub. L. 103-329, 108 Stat. 2423; § 630.501 and subpart F also issued under E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305; subpart H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6326; subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, Pub. L. 100-566, 102 Stat. 2834, and Pub. L. 103-103, 107 Stat. 1022; subpart J also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6362, Pub. L 100-566, and Pub. L. 103-103; subpart K also issued under Pub. L. 105-18, 111 Stat. 158; subpart L also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6387 and Pub. L. 103-3, 107 Stat. 23; and subpart M also issued under section 2(d) of Pub. L. 114-75, 129 Stat. 640.
This subpart implements 5 U.S.C. 6329, which establishes a leave category, to be known as “disabled veteran leave,” for an eligible employee who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more. Such an employee is entitled to this leave for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability. Disabled veteran leave must be used during the 12-month period beginning on the first day of employment following the military service during which the employee incurred such disability. OPM's authority to regulate section 6329 is found in section 2(d) of Public Law 114-75.
This subpart applies to an employee who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more, subject to the conditions specified in this subpart. This subpart does not apply to employees of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission who are subject to regulations issued by the Postmaster General under section 2(d)(2) of Public Law 114-75. This subpart applies only to an employee who is hired on or after November 5, 2016.
(1) The earliest date an employee is hired after a period of military service during which the employee incurred a qualifying service-connected disability; or
(2) The effective date of the employee's qualifying service-connected disability, as determined by the Veterans Benefits Administration.
(1) Receiving an initial appointment to a civilian position in the Federal Government in which the service qualifies as employment under this subpart;
(2) Receiving a qualifying reappointment to a civilian position in the Federal Government in which the service qualifies as employment under this subpart; or
(3) Returning to duty status in a civilian position in the Federal Government in which the service qualifies as employment under this subpart, when such return immediately followed a break in civilian duty (with the employee in continuous civilian leave status) to perform military service.
(a) An employee who is a veteran with a qualifying service-connected disability is entitled to disabled veteran leave under this subpart, which will be available for use during the 12-month eligibility period beginning on the first day of employment. For each employee, there is a single first day of employment.
(b) In order to be eligible for disabled veteran leave, an employee must provide to the agency documentation from the Veterans Benefits Administration certifying that the employee has a qualifying service-connected disability. The documentation should be provided to the agency—
(1) Upon the first day of employment, if the employee has already received such certifying documentation; or
(2) For an employee who has not yet received such certifying documentation from the Veterans Benefit Administration, as soon as practicable after the employee receives the certifying documentation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, an employee may submit certifying documentation at a later time, including after a period of absence for medical treatment, as described in § 630.1306(c). The 12-month eligibility period is fixed based on the first day of employment and is not affected by the timing of when certifying documentation is provided.
(d) If an employee's service-connected disability rating is decreased or discontinued during the 12-month eligibility period such that the employee no longer has a qualifying service-connected disability—
(1) The employee must notify the agency of the effective date of the change in the disability rating; and
(2) The employee is no longer eligible for disabled veteran leave as of the effective date of the rating change.
(a) Upon receipt of the certifying documentation under § 630.1304, an agency must credit 104 hours of disabled veteran leave to a full-time, nonseasonal employee or a proportionally equivalent amount for employees with part-time, seasonal, or uncommon tours of duty, except as otherwise provided in this section.
(b) The proportional equivalent of 104 hours for a full-time employee is determined for employees with other schedules as follows:
(1) For an employee with a part-time work schedule, the 104 hours is prorated based on the number of hours in the part-time schedule (as established for leave charging purposes) relative to a full-time schedule (
(2) For an employee with a seasonal work schedule, the 104 hours is prorated based on the total projected hours to be worked in an annual period of 52 weeks (based on the seasonal employee's seasonal work periods and full-time or part-time schedule during those periods) relative to a full-time work year of 2,080 hours (
(3) For an employee with an uncommon tour of duty (as defined in § 630.201 and described in § 630.210), 104 hours is proportionally increased based on the number of hours in the uncommon tour relative to the hours in a regular full-time tour (
(c) When an employee is converted to a different tour of duty for leave purposes, the employee's balance of unused disabled veteran leave must be converted to the proper number of hours based on the proportion of hours in the new tour of duty compared to the former tour of duty. For seasonal employees, hours must be annualized in determining the proportion.
(d) The amount of disabled veteran leave initially credited to an employee under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be offset by the number of hours of sick leave an employee has credited to his or her account as of the first day of employment. For example, if an employee is being reappointed and having sick leave recredited upon such reappointment, the amount of disabled veteran leave must be reduced by the amount of such recredited sick leave. Similarly, if an employee is returning to civilian duty status after a period of leave for military service, that employee may have a balance of sick leave, which must be used to offset the disabled veteran leave.
(e)(1) An employee who was previously employed by an agency whose employees were not subject to 5 U.S.C. 6329 must certify, at the time the employee is hired in a position subject to 5 U.S.C. 6329, whether or not that former agency provided entitlement to an equivalent disabled veteran leave benefit to be used in connection with the medical treatment of a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more. The employee must certify the date he or she commenced the period of eligibility to use disabled veteran leave in the former agency.
(2) If 12 months have elapsed since the commencing date referenced in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the employee will be considered to have received the full amount of an equivalent benefit and no benefit may be provided under this subpart.
(3) If the employee is still within the 12-month period that began on the commencing date referenced in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the employee must certify the number of hours of disabled veteran leave used at the former agency. The gaining agency must offset the number of hours of disabled veteran leave to be credited to the employee by the number of such hours used by the employee at such agency, while making no offset under paragraph (d) of this section. If the employee had a different type of work schedule at the former agency, the hours used at the former agency must be converted before applying the offset, consistent with § 630.1305(c).
(a) An employee may use disabled veteran leave only for the medical treatment of a qualifying service-connected disability. The medical treatment may include a period of rest, but only if such period of rest is specifically ordered by the health care provider as part of a prescribed course of treatment for the qualifying service-connected disability.
(b)(1) An employee must file an application—written, oral, or electronic, as required by the agency—to use disabled veteran leave. The application must include a personal self-certification by the employee that the requested leave will be (or was) used for purposes of being furnished medical treatment for a qualifying service-connected disability. The application must also include the specific days and hours of absence required for the treatment. The application must be submitted within such time limits as the agency may require.
(2) An employee must request approval to use disabled veteran leave in advance unless the need for leave is critical and not foreseeable—
(c)(1) When an employee did not provide the agency with certification of a qualifying service-connected disability before having a period of absence for treatment of such disability, the employee is entitled to substitute approved disabled veteran leave retroactively for such period of absence (excluding periods of suspension or absence without leave (AWOL), but including leave without pay, sick leave, annual leave, compensatory time off, or other paid time off) in the 12-month eligibility period. Such retroactive substitution cancels the use of the original leave or paid time off and requires appropriate adjustments. In the case of retroactive substitution for a period when an employee used advanced annual leave or advanced sick leave, the adjustment is a liquidation of the leave indebtedness covered by the substitution.
(2) An agency may require an employee to submit the medical certification described in § 630.1307(a) before approving such retroactive substitution.
(a) In addition to the employee's self-certification required under § 630.1306(b)(1), an agency may additionally require that the use of disabled veteran leave be supported by a signed written medical certification issued by a health care provider.
(b) When an agency requires a signed written medical certification by a health care provider, the agency may specify that the certification include—
(1) A statement by the health care provider that the medical treatment is for one or more service-connected disabilities of the employee rated at 30 percent or more;
(2) The date or dates of treatment or, if the treatment extends over several days, the beginning and ending dates of the treatment;
(3) If the leave was not requested in advance, a statement that the treatment required was of an urgent nature or there were other circumstances that made advanced scheduling not possible; and
(4) any additional information that is essential to verify the employee's eligibility.
(c)(1) An employee must provide any required written medical certification no later than 15 calendar days after the date the agency requests such medical certification, except as otherwise allowed under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) If the agency determines it is not practicable under the particular circumstances for the employee to provide the requested medical certification within 15 calendar days after the date requested by the agency despite the employee's diligent, good faith efforts, the employee must provide the medical certification within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances involved, but no later than 30 calendar days after the date the agency requests such documentation.
(3) An employee who does not provide the required evidence or medical certification within the specified time period is not entitled to use disabled veteran leave, and the agency may, as appropriate and consistent with applicable laws and regulations—
(i) Charge the employee as absent without leave (AWOL); or
(ii) Allow the employee to request that the absence be charged to leave without pay, sick leave, annual leave, or other forms of paid time off.
(a) Disabled veteran leave not used during the 12-month eligibility period may not be carried over to subsequent years and must be forfeited.
(b) If a change in the employee's disability rating during the 12-month eligibility period causes the employee to no longer have a qualifying service-connected disability (as described in § 630.1304(d)), any unused disabled veteran leave to the employee's credit as of the effective date of the rating change must be forfeited.
(c) When an employee with a positive disabled veteran leave balance transfers between positions in different agencies, or transfers from the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission to a position in another agency, during the 12-month eligibility period, the agency from which the employee transfers must certify the number of unused disabled veteran leave hours available for credit by the gaining agency. The losing agency must also certify the expiration date of the employee's 12-month eligibility period to the gaining agency. Any unused disabled veteran leave will be forfeited at the end of that eligibility period. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “transfers” means movement from a position in one agency (or the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission) to a position in another agency without a break in employment of 1 workday or more in circumstances where service in both positions qualifies as employment under this subpart.
(d)(1) An employee covered by this subpart, or an employee of the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission, with a balance of unused disabled veteran leave who has a break in employment of at least 1 workday during the employee's 12-month eligibility period, and later recommences employment covered by 5 U.S.C. 6329 within that same eligibility period, is entitled to a recredit of the unused balance.
(2) When an employee has a break in employment as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the losing agency must certify the number of unused disabled veteran leave hours available for recredit by the gaining agency. The losing agency must also certify the expiration date of the employee's 12-month eligibility period. Any unused disabled veteran leave must be forfeited at the end of that eligibility period.
(3) In the absence of the certification described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the recredit of disabled veteran leave may also be supported by written documentation available to the employing agency in its official personnel records concerning the employee, the official records of the employee's former employing agency, copies of contemporaneous earnings and leave statement(s) provided by the employee, or copies of other contemporaneous written documentation acceptable to the agency.
(e) An employee may not receive a lump-sum payment for any unused disabled veteran leave under any circumstance.
Office of Government Ethics.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Government Ethics is proposing to amend the
Comments are invited and must be received on or before August 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, in writing, on this proposed rule, identified by RIN 3209-AA42, by any of the following methods:
Monica Ashar, Assistant Counsel; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.
Title IV of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as amended (the Act), sets forth the responsibilities of the Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in providing overall direction of executive branch policies related to preventing conflicts of interest on the part of officers and employees of any executive agency. On January 9, 1981, a final rule was published which set forth the elements of an agency's ethics program, the responsibilities of an agency head with regard to that program, and the duties of a Designated Agency Ethics Official. It also established the formal advisory opinion service of the Office of Government Ethics.
The next substantive addition to part 2638 occurred in 1990. The Office of Government Ethics Reauthorization Act of 1988, Public Law 100-598, granted the Director of the Office of Government Ethics the authority to order corrective action on the part of individuals and agencies, and to require certain reports from agencies. On January 18, 1990, the Office of Government Ethics issued interim regulations, as later modified by the final rule, which established procedures to correct deficiencies in executive branch ethics programs; to bring individual agency employees into compliance with rules, regulations, and executive orders relating to standards of conduct and conflicts of interest; and to specify requirements for executive agency reports.
That same year, the Office of Government Ethics issued a proposed new subpart G to require executive branch ethics programs to maintain ethics training programs for their employees.
The proposed revisions, which are described in further detail below, draw upon the collective experience of agency ethics officials across the executive branch and the Office of Government Ethics as the supervising ethics office. They reflect the extensive input that the executive branch ethics community provided throughout the drafting process. In short, they present a comprehensive picture of the executive branch ethics program, its responsibilities and its procedures, as reflected through 35 years of interpreting and implementing the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, as well as other applicable statutes, regulations, executive orders and authorities.
The proposed subpart A, titled “Mission and Responsibilities,” presents an overarching view of the executive branch ethics program and establishes context for part 2638. It opens by setting forth the program's core principles: Its mission of preventing conflicts of interest, the breadth of conflicts prevention, and the scope of a conflicts-based program. Whereas the current regulation necessarily focuses on the granular operations of the executive branch ethics program, the proposed rule seeks also to articulate the core goals that guide the program's work.
Subpart A then expands upon the regulations that currently exist at subpart B and that have remained largely unchanged since their issuance in 1981. The existing provisions, collected under the heading “Designated Agency Ethics Official,” enumerate the responsibilities of the agency head, the duties of the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO), and the delegation of those duties by the DAEO to one or more deputy agency ethics officials. However, as the Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics officials have experienced in the time since issuance of those provisions, there are several agency operations outside of the DAEO's control that are nonetheless critical to the success of an agency ethics program. Further, while the agency head is ultimately responsible for the ethics program, the structure of the existing subpart B serves to understate the agency head's role. The proposed subpart A improves upon the current regulation by identifying key constituencies individually and delineating their responsibilities.
Subpart A concludes by defining the role and responsibilities of the Office of Government Ethics as the supervising ethics office for the executive branch. It expands upon the provision presently located at § 2638.102 to provide a more comprehensive list of the authorities and functions of the agency. It also institutionalizes certain practices, such as convening quarterly meetings, that the Office of Government Ethics otherwise plans to continue indefinitely.
The proposed subpart B centralizes the procedures of the executive branch ethics program. At present, these procedures are found in the existing subpart C (Formal Advisory Opinion Service), the existing subpart F (Executive Branch Agency Reports), and in several advisories that are available on the public-facing Web site of the Office of Government Ethics. These procedures concern the furnishing of information, records and reports to the Office of Government Ethics; the executive branch's collection of financial disclosure reports; and the issuance of formal advisory opinions and other written guidance by the Office of Government Ethics. Further, the proposed subpart B will include one new procedure, which pertains to ethics preparations for presidential transitions.
With respect to financial disclosure reports, §§ 2638.203 through 2638.205 establish the procedures that the executive branch ethics program will use to collect public and confidential financial disclosure reports. Part 2634 of this chapter addresses the substantive requirements of public and confidential financial disclosure, as well as the processes for individual agencies' review, maintenance, and, where applicable, release of financial disclosure reports.
Subpart C further modernizes the ethics training regulations currently located at subpart G. This revision is one of several that have occurred since the training regulations were first issued in 1992. Most notably, it acknowledges the increased use of technology to fulfill existing training requirements and updates the current framework, which distinguishes between “verbal training” and “written training,” so that the key distinction will be between “live training” and “interactive training.” Interactive training may take a variety of forms, and training that satisfies the requirements for live training will also always satisfy the requirements for interactive training.
Additionally, it creates greater flexibility for agency ethics officials—who are in the best position to know their agencies' programs and operations—to tailor the content of the training to meet the needs of their employees. For example, for employees who are required to receive annual training, the current subpart C has required the agency's training to cover each of the principles of ethical conduct, each of the standards of ethical conduct, and each of the Federal conflict of interest statutes, in addition to any agency supplemental standards of conduct. The proposed rule distills this broad range of topics into four key topic areas and provides the DAEO with broad discretion to determine how much of the training to devote to each of these four topic areas. After covering these four required topic areas, as briefly or extensively as the circumstances warrant, an agency's training may focus on other government ethics topics that the DAEO deems relevant to the audience being trained.
As part of this modernization, subpart C also makes adjustments to the existing requirements for initial ethics orientation and annual training. At the same time, it introduces a new requirement to brief certain agency leaders around the time of appointment. This briefing must occur after confirmation but no later than 15 days after appointment, unless the DAEO grants a 15-day extension. A limited exception permits the DAEO to grant an individual an additional extension, but only in extraordinary circumstances. An individual's workload, meeting schedule, or travel schedule will normally not, without more, constitute extraordinary circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances necessitating an additional extension might include a natural or manmade disaster, an imminent threat to national security, the individual's physical incapacity, the individual's absence from the office in connection with the death of a family member, and other circumstances of a similarly disruptive magnitude.
Subpart C also introduces requirements for agencies to inform prospective employees, in any written employment offers, of the ethical obligations associated with the positions being offered, and to notify newly appointed supervisors of their unique role in the agency ethics program. By taking advantage of existing personnel systems for issuing written offers of employment and for training new supervisors, agencies can, with little additional effort, inform employees of their newly acquired ethical responsibilities. For example, the notice to new supervisors that is required under § 2638.306 could be provided to new supervisors either in the written notice that they are subject to the requirements of 5 CFR 412.202(b) or during the training they receive pursuant to 5 CFR 412.202(b).
Subpart C acknowledges that ethics officials may coordinate with other offices to fulfill certain programmatic requirements. For example, an agency's Office of Human Resources may be delegated the responsibility to inform prospective employees, in written employment offers, of their ethical obligations. With respect to the tracking of specified activities performed by offices that are not supervised by the DAEO, as described in § 2638.310, the Office of Government Ethics requires only that the DAEO receive a written summary of the established procedures, and a written confirmation that these procedures are being properly implemented. Where § 2638.310 applies, agencies need not track the completion of each particular action taken with respect to individual employees.
Finally, subpart C eliminates the formal requirement for agencies to develop training plans, which largely consist of inordinately detailed estimates of various categories of employees required to complete annual training in a particular year. In the experience of the Office of Government Ethics, these plans appear to contribute little to the success of agency training programs while requiring a disproportionately large effort from agency ethics officials. The requirement to engage in reasonable planning efforts still applies, but the Office of Government Ethics will no longer prescribe the form these efforts must take.
The proposed subpart D modifies the current subpart D, which establishes procedures for the correction of executive branch ethics programs. These procedures are implemented when there are indications that an agency ethics program is not in compliance with the requirements set forth in applicable government ethics laws and regulations. The proposed subpart D improves the current procedures by enumerating several informal actions that the Director may take in order to bring the agency into compliance. These informal procedures reflect the practice of the Office of Government Ethics over the past several decades. The Office of Government Ethics has found that informal resolution is often an appropriate and effective alternative to formal action because it involves agency ethics officials and other stakeholders in actively crafting and implementing a resolution. However, in the event that informal action does not resolve the deficiency, the Director will take formal
The proposed subpart E modifies the current subpart E, which contains procedures for addressing potential violations of noncriminal ethics laws and regulations by individual employees. These corrective action procedures, which were established in 1990, have generated considerable confusion among external stakeholders over the past 26 years. The proposed subpart E therefore seeks to clarify three fundamental elements. First, it clarifies the meaning and effect of subpart E, particularly with respect to the limits on the authority of the Office of Government Ethics to direct employees to take corrective action. Second, it emphasizes that, in practice, suspected violations of noncriminal government ethics laws or regulations are generally resolved without the need for formal action on the part of the Office of Government Ethics. Third, it makes clear that, as a matter of law, the formal procedures may be used only when no criminal law is or has been implicated.
The proposed subpart F, which comprises general provisions, largely incorporates subpart A of the current regulation. Additionally, the proposed subpart F provides a comprehensive list of key ethics dates and deadlines that are otherwise dispersed throughout this part and other statutes and regulations.
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects current and former Federal executive branch employees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II), this proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has been designated as a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this proposed rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
Administrative practice and procedure, Conflict of interests, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics proposes to revise 5 CFR part 2638 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 101-505; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Consistent with the fundamental principle that public service is a public trust, every employee in the executive branch plays a critical role in the executive branch ethics program. As provided in the Standards of Conduct at part 2635 of this chapter, employees must endeavor to act at all times in the public's interest, avoid losing impartiality or appearing to lose impartiality in carrying out official duties, refrain from misusing their offices for private gain, serve as good stewards of public resources, and comply with the requirements of government ethics laws and regulations, including any applicable financial disclosure requirements. Employees must refrain from participating in particular matters in which they have financial interests and, pursuant to § 2635.402(f) of this chapter, should notify their supervisors or ethics officials when their official duties create the substantial likelihood of such conflicts of interest. Collectively, the charge of employees is to make ethical conduct the hallmark of government service.
Every supervisor in the executive branch has a heightened personal responsibility for advancing government ethics. It is imperative that supervisors serve as models of ethical behavior for subordinates. Supervisors have a responsibility to help ensure that subordinates are aware of their ethical obligations under the Standards of Conduct and that subordinates know how to contact agency ethics officials. Supervisors are also responsible for working with agency ethics officials to help resolve conflicts of interest and enforce government ethics laws and regulations, including those requiring certain employees to file financial disclosure reports. In addition, supervisors are responsible, when requested, for assisting agency ethics officials in evaluating potential conflicts of interest and identifying positions subject to financial disclosure requirements.
(a)
(b)
(1) The DAEO must be an employee at an appropriate level in the organization, such that the DAEO is able to coordinate effectively with officials in relevant agency components and gain access to the agency head when necessary to discuss important matters related to the agency's ethics program.
(2) The DAEO must be an employee who has demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to manage a significant agency program, to understand and apply complex legal requirements, and to generate support for building and sustaining an ethical culture in the organization.
(3) On an ongoing basis, the DAEO must demonstrate the capacity to serve as an effective advocate for the executive branch ethics program, show support for the mission of the executive branch ethics program, prove responsive to the Director's requests for documents and information related to the ethics program, and serve as an effective liaison with the Office of Government Ethics.
(4) In any agency with 1,000 or more employees, any DAEO appointed after the effective date of this regulation must be an employee at the senior executive level or higher, unless the agency has fewer than 10 positions at that level.
(c)
(1) Serving as an effective liaison to the Office of Government Ethics;
(2) Maintaining records of agency ethics program activities;
(3) Promptly and timely furnishing the Office of Government Ethics with all documents and information requested or required under subpart B of this part;
(4) Providing advice and counseling to prospective and current employees regarding government ethics laws and regulations, and providing former employees with advice and counseling regarding post-employment restrictions applicable to them;
(5) Carrying out an effective government ethics education program under subpart C of this part;
(6) Taking appropriate action to resolve conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest, through recusals, directed divestitures, waivers, authorizations, reassignments, and other appropriate means;
(7) Consistent with § 2640.303 of this chapter, consulting with the Office of Government Ethics regarding the issuance of waivers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208(b);
(8) Carrying out an effective financial disclosure program, by:
(i) Establishing such written procedures as are appropriate relative to the size and complexity of the agency's financial disclosure program for the filing, review, and, when applicable, public availability of financial disclosure reports;
(ii) Requiring public and confidential filers to comply with deadlines and requirements for financial disclosure reports under part 2634 of this chapter and, in the event of noncompliance, taking appropriate action to address such noncompliance;
(iii) Imposing late fees in appropriate cases involving untimely filing of public financial disclosure reports;
(iv) Making referrals to the Inspector General or the Department of Justice in appropriate cases involving knowing and willful falsification of financial disclosure reports or knowing and willful failure to file financial disclosure reports;
(v) Reviewing financial disclosure reports, with an emphasis on preventing conflicts of interest;
(vi) Consulting, when necessary, with financial disclosure filers and their supervisors to evaluate potential conflicts of interest;
(vii) Timely certifying financial disclosure reports and taking appropriate action with regard to financial disclosure reports that cannot be certified; and
(viii) Using the information disclosed in financial disclosure reports to prevent and resolve potential conflicts of interest.
(9) Assisting the agency in its enforcement of ethics laws and regulations when agency officials:
(i) Make appropriate referrals to the Inspector General or the Department of Justice;
(ii) Take disciplinary or corrective action; and
(iii) Employ other means available to them.
(10) Upon request of the Office of Inspector General, providing that office with ready and active assistance with regard to the interpretation and application of government ethics laws and regulations, as well as the procedural requirements of the ethics program;
(11) Ensuring that the agency has a process for notifying the Office of Government Ethics upon referral, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 535, to the Department of Justice regarding a potential violation of a conflict of interest law, unless such notification would be prohibited by law;
(12) Providing agency officials with advice on the applicability of government ethics laws and regulations to special Government employees;
(13) Requiring timely compliance with ethics agreements, pursuant to part 2634, subpart H of this chapter;
(14) Conducting ethics briefings for certain agency leaders, pursuant to § 2638.305;
(15) Prior to any Presidential election, preparing the agency's ethics program for a potential Presidential transition; and
(16) Periodically evaluating the agency's ethics program and making recommendations to the agency regarding the resources available to the ethics program.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Request approval of supplemental agency regulations, pursuant to § 2635.105 of this chapter;
(2) Recommend a separate component designation, pursuant to § 2641.302(e) of this chapter;
(3) Request approval of an alternative means for collecting certain public financial disclosure reports, pursuant to § 2638.204(c);
(4) Request determinations regarding public reporting requirements, pursuant to §§ 2634.202(c), 2634.203, 2634.205, and 2634.304(f) of this chapter;
(5) Make determinations, other than exceptions in individual cases, regarding the means the agency will use to collect public or confidential financial disclosure reports, pursuant to §§ 2638.204 and 2638.205;
(6) Request an alternative procedure for filing confidential financial disclosure reports, pursuant to § 2634.905(a) of this chapter;
(7) Request a formal advisory opinion on behalf of the agency or a prospective, current, or former employee of that agency, pursuant to § 2638.209(d); and
(8) Request a certificate of divestiture, pursuant to § 2634.1005(b) of this chapter.
(a) The lead human resources official, as defined in § 2638.603, acting directly or through delegees, is responsible for:
(1) Promptly notifying the DAEO of all appointments to positions that require incumbents to file public or confidential financial disclosure reports, with the notification occurring prior to appointment whenever practicable but in no case occurring more than 15 days after appointment; and
(2) Promptly notifying the DAEO of terminations of employees in positions that require incumbents to file public financial disclosure reports, with the notification occurring prior to termination whenever practicable but in no case occurring more than 15 days after termination.
(b) The lead human resources official may be assigned certain additional ethics responsibilities by the agency.
(1) If an agency elects to assign such responsibilities to human resources officials, the lead human resources official is responsible for coordinating, to the extent necessary and practicable, with the DAEO to support the agency's ethics program;
(2) If the lead human resources official is responsible for conducting ethics training pursuant to subpart C of this part, that official must follow the DAEO's directions regarding applicable requirements, procedures, and the qualifications of any presenters, consistent with the requirements of this chapter;
(3) If the lead human resources official is responsible for issuing the required government ethics notices in written offers of employment, pursuant to § 2638.303, or providing supervisory ethics notices, pursuant to § 2638.306, that official must comply with any substantive and procedural requirements established by the DAEO, consistent with the requirements of this chapter; and
(4) To the extent applicable, the lead human resources official is required to provide the DAEO with a written summary and confirmation regarding procedures for implementing certain requirements of subpart C of this part by January 15 each year, pursuant to § 2638.310.
(c) Nothing in this section prevents an agency head from delegating the duties described in paragraph (b) of this
An agency's Inspector General has authority to conduct investigations of suspected violations of conflict of interest laws and other government ethics laws and regulations. An Inspector General is responsible for giving serious consideration to a request made pursuant to section 403 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (the “Act”) by the Office of Government Ethics for investigation of a possible violation of a government ethics law or regulation. In addition, an Inspector General is responsible for providing the Office of Government Ethics information about certain referrals to the Department of Justice, pursuant to § 2638.206. An Inspector General may consult with the Director for legal guidance on the application of government ethics laws and regulations, except that the Director may not make any finding as to whether a provision of title 18, United States Code, or any criminal law of the United States outside of such title, has been or is being violated.
The agency head is responsible for, and will exercise personal leadership in, establishing and maintaining an effective agency ethics program and fostering an ethical culture in the agency. The agency head is also responsible for:
(a) Designating employees to serve as the DAEO and ADAEO and notifying the Director in writing within 30 days of such designation;
(b) Providing the DAEO with sufficient resources, including staffing, to sustain an effective ethics program;
(c) Requiring agency officials to provide the DAEO with the information, support, and cooperation necessary for the accomplishment of the DAEO's responsibilities;
(d) When action is warranted, enforcing government ethics laws and regulations through appropriate referrals to the Inspector General or the Department of Justice, investigations, and disciplinary or corrective action;
(e) Requiring that violations of government ethics laws and regulations, or interference with the functioning of the agency ethics program, be appropriately considered in evaluating the performance of senior executives;
(f) Requiring the Chief Information Officer and other appropriate agency officials to support the DAEO in using technology, to the extent practicable, to carry out ethics program functions such as delivering interactive training and tracking ethics program activities;
(g) Requiring appropriate agency officials to submit to the Office of Government Ethics, by May 31 each year, required reports of travel accepted by the agency under 31 U.S.C. 1353 during the period from October 1 through March 31;
(h) Requiring appropriate agency officials to submit to the Office of Government Ethics, by November 30 each year, required reports of travel accepted by the agency under 31 U.S.C. 1353 during the period from April 1 through September 30; and
(i) Prior to any Presidential election, supporting the agency's ethics program in preparing for a Presidential transition.
The Office of Government Ethics is the supervising ethics office for the executive branch, providing overall leadership and oversight of the executive branch ethics program designed to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. The Office of Government Ethics has the authorities and functions established in the Act.
(a)
(1) The Office of Government Ethics issues regulations regarding conflicts of interest, standards of conduct, financial disclosure, requirements for agency ethics programs, and executive branch-wide systems of records for government ethics records. In issuing any such regulations, the Office of Government Ethics will, to the full extent required under the Act and any Executive Order, coordinate with the Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management. When practicable, the Office of Government Ethics will also consult with a diverse group of selected agency ethics officials that represent a cross section of executive branch agencies to ascertain representative views of the DAEO community when developing substantive revisions to this chapter.
(2) The Office of Government Ethics reviews and approves or disapproves agency supplemental ethics regulations.
(3) The Office of Government Ethics issues formal advisory opinions to interested parties, pursuant to § 2638.209. When developing a formal advisory opinion, the Office of Government Ethics will provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment.
(4) The Office of Government Ethics issues guidance and informal advisory opinions, pursuant to § 2638.208. When practicable, the Office of Government Ethics will consult with selected agency ethics officials to ascertain representative views of the DAEO community when developing guidance or informal advisory opinions that the Director determines to be of significant interest to a broad segment of the DAEO community.
(5) The Office of Government Ethics supports agency ethics officials through such training, advice, and counseling as the Director deems necessary.
(6) The Office of Government Ethics provides assistance in interpreting government ethics laws and regulations to executive branch Offices of Inspector General and other executive branch entities.
(7) When practicable, the Office of Government Ethics convenes quarterly executive branch-wide meetings of key agency ethics officials. When the Office of Government Ethics convenes a major executive branch-wide training event, the event normally serves in place of a quarterly meeting.
(8) Pursuant to sections 402(b)(10) and 403 of the Act, the Director requires agencies to furnish the Office of Government Ethics with all information, reports, and records which the Director determines to be necessary for the performance of the Director's duties, except when such a release is prohibited by law.
(9) The Office of Government Ethics conducts reviews of agency ethics programs in order to ensure their compliance with program requirements and to ensure their effectiveness in advancing the mission of the executive branch-wide ethics program. The Office of Government Ethics also conducts single-issue reviews of individual agencies, groups of agencies, or the executive branch ethics program as a whole.
(10) The Office of Government Ethics reviews financial disclosure reports filed by employees, former employees, nominees, candidates for the Office of the President of the United States, and candidates for the Office of the Vice President of the United States who are required to file executive branch financial disclosure reports with the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to
(11) By January 15 each year, the Office of Government Ethics issues year-end reports to agencies regarding their compliance with the obligations, pursuant to section 103(c) of the Act and part 2634 of this chapter:
(i) To timely transmit the annual public financial disclosure reports of certain high-level officials to the Office of Government Ethics; and
(ii) To promptly submit such additional information as is necessary to obtain the Director's certification of the reports.
(12) The Office of Government Ethics oversees the development of ethics agreements between agencies and Presidential nominees for positions in the executive branch requiring Senate confirmation and tracks compliance with such agreements. The Office of Government Ethics also maintains a guide that provides sample language for ethics agreements of Presidential nominees requiring Senate confirmation.
(13) The Office of Government Ethics proactively assists Presidential Transition Teams in support of effective and efficient Presidential transitions and, to the extent practicable, may provide Presidential campaigns with advice and counsel on preparing for Presidential transitions.
(14) The Office of Government Ethics orders such corrective action on the part of an agency as the Director deems necessary, pursuant to subpart D of this part, and such corrective action on the part of individual executive branch employees as the Director deems necessary, pursuant to subpart E of this part.
(15) The Office of Government Ethics makes determinations regarding public financial disclosure requirements, pursuant to §§ 2634.202(c), 2634.203, 2634.205, and 2634.304(f) of this chapter.
(16) The Office of Government Ethics conducts outreach to inform the public of matters related to the executive branch ethics program.
(17) The Director and the Office of Government Ethics take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate to carry out their responsibilities under the Act.
(b)
This subpart establishes certain procedures of the executive branch ethics program. The procedures set forth in this subpart are in addition to procedures established elsewhere in this chapter and in the program advisories and other issuances of the Office of Government Ethics.
Consistent with sections 402 and 403 of the Act, each agency must furnish to the Director all information and records in its possession which the Director deems necessary to the performance of the Director's duties, except to the extent prohibited by law. All such information and records must be provided to the Office of Government Ethics in a complete and timely manner.
The public financial disclosure reports of individuals, other than candidates for elected office and elected officials, whose reports are required by section 103 of the Act to be transmitted to the Office of Government Ethics will be transmitted through the executive branch-wide electronic filing system of the Office of Government Ethics, except in cases in which the Director determines that using that system would be impracticable.
This section establishes the procedure that the executive branch ethics program will use to collect, pursuant to section 101 of the Act, public financial disclosure reports of individuals whose reports are not required by section 103 of the Act to be transmitted to the Office of Government Ethics.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
This section establishes the procedure that the executive branch will use to collect confidential financial disclosure reports from employees of the executive branch. To the extent not inconsistent with part 2634 of this chapter or with the approved forms, instructions, and other guidance of the Office of Government Ethics, the DAEO of each agency will determine the means by
This section establishes procedures implementing the requirement to provide the Director with notice of certain referrals, pursuant to sections 402(e)(2) and 403(a)(2) of the Act.
(a) Upon any referral made by an agency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 535 to the Department of Justice regarding a potential violation of a conflict of interest law, the referring agency must notify the Director of the referral by filing a completed OGE Form 202 with the Director, as soon as practicable after the referral but in no case more than 30 days after the referral, unless prohibited by law.
(b) Thereafter, unless prohibited by law, the referring agency must promptly provide the Director with such other information as requested regarding the matter and any related prosecution, civil action, disciplinary action, or other corrective measure.
(c) If an agency's procedures authorize an official outside the Office of Inspector General to make a referral covered by this section, that official must provide the Inspector General and the DAEO with copies of documents provided to the Director pursuant this section, unless prohibited by law. If an Inspector General makes a referral covered by this section, the Inspector General should provide the DAEO with copies of documents provided to the Director pursuant to this section, unless the Inspector General determines that disclosure to the DAEO would be inappropriate or prohibited by law.
(a) By February 1 of each year, the agency must file with the Office of Government Ethics, pursuant to section 402(e)(1) of the Act, a report containing such information about the agency's ethics program as is requested by the Office of Government Ethics. The report must be filed electronically and in a manner consistent with the instructions of the Office of Government Ethics.
(b) In order to facilitate the collection of required information by agencies, the Office of Government Ethics will provide agencies with advance notice regarding the contents of the report prior to the beginning of the reporting period for information that would be expected to be tracked over the course of the reporting period. Otherwise, it will provide as much notice as practicable, taking in consideration the effort required to collect the information.
This section describes several means by which the Office of Government Ethics provides agencies, employees, and the public with guidance regarding its legal interpretations, program requirements, and educational offerings. Normally, guidance documents are published on the official Web site of the Office of Government Ethics.
(a)
(b)
(c)
This section establishes the formal advisory opinion service of the Office of Government Ethics.
(a)
(b)
(1) The unique nature of the question and its precedential value;
(2) The potential number of employees throughout the government affected by the question;
(3) The frequency with which the question arises;
(4) The likelihood or presence of inconsistent interpretations on the same question by different agencies; and
(5) The interests of the executive branch ethics program.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) An express statement indicating that the submission is a request for a formal advisory opinion;
(2) The name, street address, and telephone number of the person requesting the opinion;
(3) The name, street address, and telephone number of any representative of that person;
(4) All material facts necessary for the Director to render a complete and correct opinion;
(5) The date of the request and the signature of either the requestor or the requestor's representative; and
(6) In the case of a request signed by a representative, a written designation of the representative that is dated and signed by the requestor.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(i) Any person directly involved in the specific transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory opinion has been rendered; and
(ii) Any person directly involved in any specific transaction or activity which is indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the transaction or activity with respect to which such formal advisory opinion was rendered.
(2) Any person who relies upon any provision or finding of any formal advisory opinion in accordance with this paragraph and who acts in good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of such opinion, will not, as a result of such act, be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 202-209 or, when the opinion is exculpatory, be subject to any disciplinary action or civil action based upon legal authority cited in that opinion.
Prior to any Presidential election, each agency has a responsibility to prepare its agency ethics program for a Presidential transition. Such preparations do not constitute support for a particular candidate and are not reflective of a belief regarding the likely outcome of the election; rather, they reflect an understanding that agencies are responsible for ensuring the continuity of governmental operations.
(a)
(b)
(1) Prior to the election, offer training opportunities for agency ethics officials on counseling departing noncareer appointees on post-employment restrictions, reviewing financial disclosure reports, drafting ethics agreements for Presidential nominees, and counseling new noncareer appointees on conflict of interest laws and the Standards of Conduct; and
(2) After the election, in the event of a Presidential transition, proactively assist the Presidential Transition Team in preparing for Presidential nominations, coordinate with agency ethics officials, and develop plans to implement new initiatives related to government ethics.
Every agency must carry out a government ethics education program to teach employees how to identify government ethics issues and obtain assistance in complying with government ethics laws and regulations. An agency's failure to comply with any of the education or notice requirements set forth in this subpart does not exempt an employee from applicable government ethics requirements.
The following definitions apply to the format of the various types of training required in this subpart. The agency may deviate from these prescribed formats to the extent necessary to provide reasonable accommodations to participants under the Rehabilitation
(a)
An agency ethics official provides a presentation regarding government ethics and takes questions from participants who are assembled in a training room with the ethics official. At the end of the session, the ethics official provides contact information for participants who wish to pose additional questions. This training is considered live.
An agency ethics official provides a presentation to a group of employees in an auditorium. She presents an introduction and a brief overview of the material that will be covered in the training. She has participants watch a prerecorded video regarding government ethics. She stops the video frequently to elaborate on key concepts and offer participants opportunities to pose questions before resuming the video. At the end of the session, she recaps key concepts and answers additional questions. She then provides contact information for employees who wish to pose additional questions. This training is considered live.
The ethics official in Example 2 arranges for several Senate-confirmed public filers stationed outside of headquarters to participate in the live training via streaming video or telephone. For these remote participants, the ethics official also establishes a means for them to pose questions during the training, such as by emailing questions to her assistant. She also provides these remote participants with instructions for contacting the ethics office to pose additional questions after the training. This training is also considered live for the remote participants.
Agency ethics officials present training via a telephone conference. A few dozen agency employees dial into the conference call. The ethics officials take questions that are submitted by email and provide contact information for employees who wish to pose additional questions later. This training is considered live.
Several Senate-confirmed public filers required to complete live training in a particular year are stationed at various facilities throughout the country. For these filers, an ethics official schedules a 20-minute conference call, emails them copies of the written materials and a link to a 40-minute video on government ethics, and instructs them to view the video before the conference call. During the conference call, the ethics official recaps key concepts, takes questions, and provides his contact information in case participants have additional questions. The public filers then confirm by email that they watched the video and participated in the conference call. This training is considered live because a substantial portion of the training was live.
(b)
An automated system allows employees to view a prerecorded video in which an agency ethics official provides training. At various points, the system poses questions and an employee selects from among a variety of possible answers. The system provides immediate feedback as to whether the selections are correct or incorrect. When the employee's selections are incorrect, the system displays the correct answer and explains the relevant concepts. This training is considered interactive.
If, instead of a video, the training described in Example 1 were to include animated or written materials interspersed with questions and answers, the training would still be considered interactive.
A DAEO emails materials to employees who are permitted under part 2638 to complete interactive training. The materials include a written training presentation, questions, and space for employees to provide written responses. Employees are instructed to submit their answers to agency ethics officials, who provide individualized feedback. This training is considered interactive.
A DAEO emails materials to employees who are permitted under part 2638 to complete interactive training. The materials include a written training presentation, questions, and an answer key. The DAEO also distributes instructions for contacting an ethics official with any questions about the subjects covered. This training meets the minimum requirements to be considered interactive, even though the employees are not required to submit their answers for review and feedback. However, any DAEO who uses this minimally interactive format is encouraged to provide employees with other opportunities for more direct and personalized feedback.
Written offers of employment for positions covered by the Standards of Conduct must include the information required in this section to provide prospective employees with notice of the ethical obligations associated with the positions.
(a)
(1) A statement regarding the agency's commitment to government ethics;
(2) Notice that the individual will be subject to the Standards of Conduct and the criminal conflict of interest statutes as an employee;
(3) Contact information for an appropriate agency ethics office or an explanation of how to obtain additional information on applicable ethics requirements;
(4) Where applicable, notice of the time frame for completing initial ethics training; and
(5) Where applicable, a statement regarding financial disclosure requirements and an explanation that new entrant reports must be filed within 30 days of appointment.
(b)
(c)
Each new employee of the agency subject to the Standards of Conduct must complete initial ethics training that meets the requirements of this section.
(a)
(2) The DAEO may exclude a non-supervisory position at or below the GS-8 grade level, or the equivalent, from the requirement to complete the training presentation described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, provided that:
(i) The DAEO signs a written determination that the duties of the position do not create a substantial likelihood that conflicts of interest will arise;
(ii) The position does not meet the criteria set forth at § 2634.904 of this chapter; and
(iii) The agency provides an employee described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section who is appointed to the position with the written materials required under paragraph (e)(2) of this section within 90 days of appointment.
(b)
(1) In the case of a Presidential nominee for a Senate-confirmed position, the nominee may complete the ethics training before or after appointment, but not later than 3 months after appointment.
(2) In the case of a special Government employee who is reasonably expected to serve for less than 60 days in a calendar year on a board, commission, or committee, the agency may provide the initial ethics training at any time before, or at the beginning of, the employee's first meeting of the board, commission, or committee.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(i) Financial conflicts of interest;
(ii) Impartiality;
(iii) Misuse of position; and
(iv) Gifts.
(2)
(i) The summary of the Standards of Conduct distributed by the Office of Government Ethics or an equivalent summary prepared by the agency;
(ii) Provisions of any supplemental agency regulations that the DAEO determines to be relevant or a summary of those provisions;
(iii) Such other written materials as the DAEO determines should be included; and
(iv) Instructions for contacting the agency's ethics office.
(f)
The DAEO of a large agency decides that the agency's ethics officials will conduct live initial ethics training for high-level employees and certain procurement officials. The DAEO directs ethics officials to cover concepts related to financial conflicts of interest, impartiality, misuse of position, and gifts during the live training sessions. She also coordinates with the agency's Chief Information Officer to develop computerized training for all other new employees, and she directs her staff to include concepts related to financial conflicts of interest, impartiality, misuse of position, and gifts in the computerized training. The computerized training poses multiple-choice questions and provides feedback when employees answer the questions. At the DAEO's request, the agency's human resources officials distribute the required written materials as part of the onboarding procedures for new employees. The computerized training automatically tracks completion of the training, and the ethics officials use sign-in sheets to track participation in the live training. After the end of the calendar year, the DAEO reviews the materials submitted by the Office of Human Resources under § 2638.310 to confirm that the agency has implemented procedures for identifying new employees, distributing the written materials, and providing their initial ethics training. The agency's program for initial ethics training complies with the requirements of § 2638.304.
The agency head, the DAEO, and the lead human resources official of an agency with more than 1,000 employees have agreed that human resources officials will conduct initial ethics training. The DAEO provides the lead human resources official with written materials for use during the training, approves the content of the presentations, and trains the human resources officials who will conduct the initial ethics training. After the end of the calendar year, the lead human resources official provides the DAEO with a copy of the agency's procedures for identifying new employees and providing initial ethics training, and the lead human resources official confirms that there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the procedures have been implemented. The DAEO reviews these procedures and finds them satisfactory. The agency has complied with its tracking obligations with regard to initial ethics training.
In addition to other applicable requirements, each individual covered by this section must complete an ethics briefing to discuss the individual's immediate ethics obligations. Although the ethics briefing is separate from the initial ethics training, the agency may elect to combine the ethics briefing and the initial ethics training, provided that the requirements of both this section and § 2638.304 are met.
(a)
(b)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, each individual covered by this section must complete the ethics briefing after confirmation but not later than 15 days after appointment. The DAEO may grant an extension of the deadline not to exceed 30 days after appointment.
(2)(i) In extraordinary circumstances, the DAEO may grant an additional extension to an individual by issuing a written determination that an extension is necessary. The determination must describe the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the extension, caution the individual to be vigilant for conflicts of interest created by any newly acquired financial interests, remind the individual to comply with any applicable ethics agreement, and be accompanied by a copy of the ethics agreement(s). The DAEO must send a copy of the determination to the individual before expiration of the time period established in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The agency must conduct the briefing at the earliest practicable date thereafter. The written determination must be retained with the record of the individual's briefing.
(ii) In the case of a special Government employee who is expected to serve for less than 60 days in a calendar year on a board, commission, or committee, the agency must provide the ethics briefing before the first meeting of the board, commission, or committee.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) If the individual acquired new financial interests reportable under section 102 of the Act after filing the nominee financial disclosure report, the agency ethics official must appropriately address the potential for conflicts of interest arising from those financial interests.
(2) The agency ethics official must counsel the individual on the basic recusal obligation under 18 U.S.C. 208(a).
(3) The agency ethics official must explain the recusal obligations and other commitments addressed in the individual's ethics agreement and ensure that the individual understands what is specifically required in order to comply with each of them, including any deadline for compliance. The ethics official and the individual must establish a process by which the recusals will be achieved, which may consist of a screening arrangement or, when the DAEO deems appropriate, vigilance on the part of the individual with regard to recusal obligations as they arise in particular matters.
(4) The agency ethics official must provide the individual with instructions and the deadline for completing initial ethics training, unless the individual completes the initial ethics training either before or during the ethics briefing.
(g)
A group of ethics officials conducts initial ethics training for six Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees within 15 days of their appointments. At the end of the training, ethics officials meet individually with each of the appointees to conduct their ethics briefings. The agency and the appointees have complied with both § 2638.304 and § 2638.305.
The Senate confirms a nominee for a position as an Assistant Secretary. After the nominee's confirmation but several days before her appointment, the nominee completes her initial ethics briefing during a telephone call with an agency ethics official, and the ethics official records the date of the briefing. The agency and the nominee have complied with § 2638.305. During the telephone call, the ethics official also discusses the content required for initial ethics training and provides the nominee with instructions for accessing the required written materials online. The agency and the nominee have also complied with § 2638.304.
The agency must provide each employee upon initial appointment to a supervisory position with the written information required under this section.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Each calendar year, employees covered by this section must complete ethics training that meets the following requirements.
(a)
(1) Each employee who is required to file an annual confidential financial disclosure report pursuant to § 2634.904 of this chapter during that calendar year, except an employee who ceases to be a confidential filer before the end of the calendar year;
(2) Employees appointed by the President and employees of the Executive Office of the President;
(3) Contracting officers described in 41 U.S.C. 2101; and
(4) Other employees designated by the head of the agency.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, employees covered by this section are required to complete interactive training.
(2) If the DAEO determines that it is impracticable to provide interactive training to a special Government employee covered by this section who is expected to work no more than 60 days in a calendar year, or to an employee who is an officer in the uniformed services serving on active duty for no more 30 consecutive days, only the requirement to provide the written materials required by this section will apply to that employee each year. The DAEO may make the determination as to individual employees or a group of employees.
(e)
(1)
(i) Financial conflicts of interest;
(ii) Impartiality;
(iii) Misuse of position; and
(iv) Gifts.
(2)
(i) The summary of the Standards of Conduct distributed by the Office of Government Ethics or an equivalent summary prepared by the agency;
(ii) Provisions of any supplemental agency regulations that the DAEO determines to be relevant or a summary of those provisions;
(iii) Such other written materials as the DAEO determines should be included; and
(iv) Instructions for contacting the agency's ethics office.
(f)
Each calendar year, public filers and other employees specified in this section must complete ethics training that meets the following requirements.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Employees whose pay is set at Level I or Level II of the Executive Schedule must complete one hour of live training each year, unless a matter of vital national interest makes it necessary for an employee to complete interactive training in lieu of live training in a particular year.
(2) Other civilian employees identified in section 103(c) of the Act who are stationed in the United States must complete live training once every 2 years and interactive training in alternate years. In extraordinary circumstances, the DAEO may grant written authorization for an employee who is required to complete live training in a particular year to complete interactive training.
(3) All other employees covered by this section must complete interactive training.
(f)
(1)
(i) Financial conflicts of interest;
(ii) Impartiality;
(iii) Misuse of position; and
(iv) Gifts.
(2)
(i) The summary of the Standards of Conduct distributed by the Office of Government Ethics or an equivalent summary prepared by the agency;
(ii) Provisions of any supplemental agency regulations that the DAEO determines to be relevant or a summary of those provisions;
(iii) Such other written materials as the DAEO determines should be included; and
(iv) Instructions for contacting the agency's ethics office.
(g)
The DAEO of a small agency distributes the written materials for annual training by emailing a link to a Web site that contains the required materials. He then conducts a live training session for all of the agency's public filers. He spends the first 15 minutes of the training addressing concepts related to financial conflicts of interest, impartiality, misuse of position, and gifts. Because several participants are published authors, he spends the next 15 minutes covering restrictions on compensation for speaking, teaching, and writing. He then spends 20 minutes discussing hypothetical examples related to the work of the agency and 10 minutes answering questions. The training meets the content requirements of this section. Further, because live training satisfies the requirements for interactive training, this training meets the formatting requirements for all public filers, including those required to complete interactive training.
An ethics official personally appears at each monthly senior staff meeting to conduct a 10-minute training session on government ethics. Across the year, he addresses concepts related to financial conflicts of interest, impartiality, misuse of position, gifts, and other subjects related to government ethics laws and regulations, although no one session covers all of these subjects. During each meeting, he distributes a one-page handout summarizing the key points of his presentation, takes questions, and provides contact information for employees who wish to pose additional questions. He records the names of the public filers in attendance at each meeting. Once a year, he emails them the required written materials, as well as the one-page summaries. While many of these public filers do not attend all 12 meetings, each attends at least six sessions during the calendar year. Although some of the filers missed the sessions that addressed gifts, they all received the handout summarizing the presentation on gifts. The training satisfies the annual training requirement for the public filers who attended the meetings, including those required to complete interactive training. Moreover, because the ethics official recorded the names of the public filers who attended, the filers are not required to separately confirm their completion of the training.
One of the Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed employees in Example 2 was required to complete live training that year. Because she attended only four senior staff meetings during the year, she completed only 40 minutes of annual ethics training. The DAEO allows the employee to spend 20 minutes reviewing the handouts and written materials and send an email confirming that she completed her review before the end of the calendar year. This arrangement satisfies the requirements for live annual training because a substantial portion of the training was live.
The DAEO may establish additional requirements for the agency's ethics education program, with or without a supplemental agency regulation under § 2635.105 of this chapter.
(a)
(b)
(c)
In an agency with 1,000 or more employees, any office that is not under the supervision of the DAEO but has been delegated responsibility for issuing notices, pursuant to § 2638.303 or § 2638.306, or conducting training, pursuant to § 2638.304, must submit the following materials to the DAEO by January 15 each year:
(a) A written summary of procedures that office has established to ensure compliance with this subpart; and
(b) Written confirmation that there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the procedures have been implemented.
The Office of Government Ethics has authority, pursuant to sections 402(b)(9) and 402(f)(1) of the Act, to take the action described in this subpart with respect to deficiencies in agency ethics programs. Agency ethics programs comprise the matters described in this subchapter for which agencies are responsible.
If the Director has information indicating that an agency ethics program is not compliant with the requirements set forth in applicable government ethics laws and regulations, the Director is authorized to take any or all of the measures described in this section. The Director may:
(a) Contact agency ethics officials informally to identify the relevant issues and resolve them expeditiously;
(b) Issue a notice of deficiency to make the agency aware of its possible noncompliance with an applicable government ethics law or regulation;
(c) Require the agency to respond in writing to the notice of deficiency;
(d) Require the agency to provide such additional information or documentation as the Director determines to be necessary;
(e) Issue an initial decision with findings as to the existence of a deficiency in the agency's ethics program;
(f) Require the agency to correct or, at the Director's discretion, satisfactorily mitigate any deficiency in its ethics program;
(g) Provide the agency with guidance on measures that would correct or satisfactorily mitigate any program deficiency;
(h) Monitor the agency's efforts to correct or satisfactorily mitigate the deficiency and require the agency to submit progress reports; or
(i) Take other actions authorized under the Act to resolve the matter informally.
If the Director determines that informal action, pursuant to § 2638.402, has not produced an acceptable resolution, the Director may issue an order directing the agency to take specific corrective action.
(a) Before issuing such an order, the Director will:
(1) Advise the agency in writing of the deficiency in its ethics program;
(2) Describe the action that the Director is considering taking;
(3) Provide the agency with 30 days to respond in writing; and
(4) Consider any timely written response submitted by the agency.
(b) If the Director is satisfied with the agency's response, no order will be issued.
(c) If the Director decides to issue an order, the order will describe the corrective action to be taken.
(d) If the agency does not comply with the order within a reasonable time, the Director will:
(1) Notify the head of the agency of intent to furnish a report of noncompliance to the President and the Congress;
(2) Provide the agency 14 calendar days within which to furnish written comments for submission with the report of noncompliance; and
(3) Report the agency's noncompliance to the President and to the Congress.
This subpart addresses the Director's limited authority, pursuant to sections 402(b)(9) and 402(f)(2) of the Act, to take certain actions with regard to individual employees if the Director suspects a violation of a noncriminal government ethics law or regulation. Section 402(f)(5) of the Act prohibits the Director from making any finding regarding a violation of a criminal law. Therefore, the Director will refer possible criminal violations to an Inspector General or the Department of Justice, pursuant to § 2638.502. If, however, the Director is concerned about a possible violation of a noncriminal government ethics law or regulation by an employee, the Director may notify the employee's agency, pursuant to § 2638.503. In the rare circumstance that an agency does not address a matter after receiving this notice, the Director may use the procedures in § 2638.504 to issue a nonbinding recommendation of a disciplinary action or an order to terminate an ongoing violation. Nothing in this subpart relieves an agency of its primary responsibility to ensure compliance with government ethics laws and regulations.
Consistent with section 402(f) of the Act, nothing in this subpart authorizes the Director or any agency official to make a finding as to whether a provision of title 18, United States Code, or any other criminal law of the United States outside of such title, has been or is being violated. If the Director has information regarding the violation of a criminal law by an individual employee, the Director will notify an Inspector General or the Department of Justice.
The Director may make such recommendations and provide such advice to employees or agencies as the Director deems necessary to ensure compliance with applicable government ethics laws and regulations. The Director's authority under this section includes the authority to communicate with agency heads and other officials regarding government ethics and to recommend that the agency investigate a matter or consider taking disciplinary or corrective action against individual employees.
In the rare case that consultations made pursuant to § 2638.503 have not resolved the matter, the Director may use the procedures in this section if the Director has reason to believe that an employee is violating, or has violated, any noncriminal government ethics law or regulation. Any proceedings pursuant to this section will be conducted in accordance with applicable national security requirements.
(a)
(b)
(1) If the Director initiates further proceedings, the Director will notify the employee in writing of the suspected violation, the right to respond orally and in writing, and the right to be represented. The notice will include instructions for submitting a written response and requesting an opportunity to present an oral response, copies of this section and sections 401-403 of the Act, and copies of the material relied upon by the Office of Government Ethics.
(2) If the Director is considering issuing an order directing the employee to take specific action to terminate an ongoing violation, the Director will also provide notice of the potential issuance of an order and the right to request a hearing, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
(c)
(d)
(1) If the employee has not had an opportunity to comment on any newly obtained material relied upon for the recommendation, the General Counsel will provide the employee with an opportunity to comment on that material before submitting the recommendation to the Director.
(2) The recommendation will include findings of fact and a conclusion as to whether it is more likely than not that a violation has occurred. The General Counsel will provide the Director with copies of the material relied upon for the recommendation, including any timely written response and a transcript of any oral response of the employee.
(3) In the case of an ongoing violation, the General Counsel may recommend an order directing the employee to take specific action to terminate the violation, provided that the employee has been afforded the notice required under paragraph (f) of this section and an opportunity for a hearing.
(e)
(1) A copy of the decision and order will be furnished to the employee and, if applicable, the employee's representative. Copies will also be provided to the DAEO and the head of the agency or, where the employee is the head of an agency, to the President. The Director's decision and any order will be posted on the official Web site of the Office of Government Ethics, except to the extent prohibited by law.
(2) The Director's decision may include a nonbinding recommendation that appropriate disciplinary or corrective action be taken against the employee. If the agency head does not take the action recommended within a reasonable period of time, the Director may notify the President.
(3) In the case of an ongoing violation, the Director may issue an order directing the employee to take specific action to terminate the violation, provided that the employee has been afforded the notice required under paragraph (f) of this section and an opportunity for a hearing.
(f)
(1) If the employee submits a written request for a hearing within 30 calendar days of the date of the employee's receipt of the notice, the hearing will be conducted pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section;
(2) If the employee does not submit a written request for a hearing within 30 days of receipt of the notice, the General Counsel may issue a recommendation, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, in lieu of a hearing after first considering any timely response of the employee, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section; and
(3) If the employee timely submits written requests for both a hearing, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, and an oral response, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, only a hearing will be conducted, pursuant to paragraph (g).
(g)
(1) The General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics will designate attorneys to present evidence and argument at the hearing in support of a possible finding that the employee is engaging in an ongoing violation. The General Counsel will serve as Advisor to the Director and will not, in connection with the presentation of evidence and argument against the employee, direct or supervise these attorneys. Any attorney who presents evidence, argument, or testimony against the employee at the hearing will be recused from assisting the Director or the General Counsel in connection with the contemplated order.
(2) The administrative law judge will issue written instructions for the conduct of the hearing, including deadlines for submitting lists of proposed witnesses and exchanging copies of documentary evidence. The hearing will be conducted informally, and the administrative law judge may make such rulings as are necessary to ensure that the hearing is conducted equitably and expeditiously.
(3) The parties to the hearing will be the employee and the attorneys of the Office of Government Ethics designated to present evidence and arguments supporting a finding that a violation is ongoing, respectively. The parties will
(4) If either party requests assistance in securing the appearance of an approved witness who is an employee, the administrative law judge may, at his or her discretion, notify the General Counsel, who will assist the Director in requesting that the head of the employing agency produce the witness, pursuant to section 403(a)(1) of the Act. The Director will notify the President if an agency head fails to produce the approved witness.
(5) The hearing will be conducted on the record and witnesses will be placed under oath and subject to cross-examination. Following the hearing, the administrative law judge will provide each party with a copy of the hearing transcript.
(6) Hearings will generally be open to the public, but the administrative law judge may issue a written order closing, in whole or in part, the hearing in the best interests of national security, the employee, a witness, or an affected person. The order will set forth the reasons for closing the hearing and, along with any objection to the order by a party, will be made a part of the record. Unless specifically excluded by the administrative law judge, the DAEO of the employee's agency will be permitted to attend a closed hearing. If the administrative law judge denies a request by a party or an affected person to close the hearing, in whole or in part, that denial will be immediately appealable by the requester. The requester must file a notice of appeal with the Director within 3 working days. In the event that such a notice is filed, the hearing will be held in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal. The notice of appeal, exclusive of attachments, may not exceed 10 pages of double-spaced type. The Director will afford the parties and, if not a party, the requester the opportunity to make an oral presentation in person or via telecommunications technology within 3 working days of the filing of the appeal. The oral presentation will be conducted on the record. If the appellant or either party is unavailable to participate in the oral presentation within the 3-working-day period, the Director will convene the oral presentation without that party or affected person. The Director will issue a decision on the appeal within 3 working days of the oral presentation. If the Director is unavailable during this time period, the Director may designate a senior executive of the Office of Government Ethics to hear the oral presentation and decide the appeal. The notice of appeal, the record of the oral presentation, the decision on the appeal, and any other document considered by the Director or the Director's designee in connection with the appeal will be made a part of the record of the hearing.
(7) After closing the record, the administrative law judge will certify the entire record to the Director for decision. When so certifying the record, the administrative law judge will make a recommended decision, which will include his or her written findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to material issues. After considering the certified record, the Director may issue a decision and an order, pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
(h)
(1) The employee or the agency has taken appropriate action to address the Director's concerns;
(2) The employee has undertaken, or agreed in writing to undertake, measures the Director deems satisfactory; or
(3) A question has arisen involving the potential application of a criminal law.
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Each agency may, subject to the prior approval of the Office of Government Ethics, issue regulations not inconsistent with this part and this subchapter, using the procedures set forth in § 2635.105 of this chapter.
For the purposes of this part:
(1) Chapter 11 of title 18 of the United States Code;
(2) The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-521, as amended);
(3) The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act) (Public Law 112-105, as amended);
(4) Executive Order 12674 (Apr. 12, 1989) as amended by Executive Order 12731 (Oct. 17, 1990); and
(5) Subchapter B of this chapter.
Except as amended by program advisories of the Office of Government Ethics, the following list summarizes key deadlines of the executive branch ethics program:
(a)
(1) The Office of Government Ethics to issue its year-end status reports, pursuant to § 2638.108(a)(11); and
(2) In an agency with 1,000 or more employees, any office not under the supervision of the DAEO that provides notices or training required under subpart C of this part to provide a written summary and confirmation, pursuant to § 2638.310.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the cockpit door frame structure, installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame, and modifying the upper cockpit door plate cover. The NPRM was prompted by reports of chafed wiring at the upper left corner of the cockpit door. The affected wire bundle was not grounded on the cockpit door frame. This action revises the NPRM by also requiring, for certain airplanes, installing a noise-reduced cockpit door locking system (CDLS). We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent electrical shock injury to persons contacting the cockpit door. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 21, 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 SNPRM, 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
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, new service information has been issued that specifies, for certain airplanes, prior or concurrent actions of installing a noise-reduced CDLS. We have determined this installation is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0037, dated March 2, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An operator has reported chafed wiring at the upper left corner of the cockpit door. The investigation concluded that the affected wire bundle, which supplies a voltage of 115V [volt] AC [alternating current], was not grounded on the cockpit door frame as part of the design of A330 and A340 aeroplanes.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury [electrical shock], in case any person gets in contact with the door frame.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB [service bulletin] A330-25-3534, SB A340-25-4349 and SB A340-25-5212 to
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the cockpit door frame structure, installation of bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame and modification of the upper cockpit door plate cover.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Service Bulletin A330-25-3213, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2005. This service information describes procedures for modification of the upper cockpit door plate cover.
• Service Bulletin A330-25-3254, Revision 02, dated December 13, 2004. This service information describes procedures for installing a noise-reduced CDLS.
• Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.
• Service Bulletin A340-25-4217, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2005. This service information describes procedures for modification of the upper cockpit door plate cover.
• Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.
• Service Bulletin A340-25-5046, Revision 02, dated February 5, 2007. This service information describes procedures for modification of the upper cockpit door plate cover.
• Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.
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 gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.
An anonymous commenter and Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that we reference revised service information. DAL requested that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015, for accomplishing the actions in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). The anonymous commenter requested that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015, in paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We agree to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015; in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This service information contains updated accomplishment instructions. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015, also revises the specified concurrent requirements.
However, in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD, we have determined that Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015; are not appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the proposed concurrent actions. Instead, we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3213, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2005; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4217, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2005; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5046, Revision 02, dated February 5, 2007; for accomplishing the concurrent action of modifying the upper cockpit door plate cover. We refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015; in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, respectively, in order to identify the affected airplanes.
We have added a new paragraph (j) to this proposed AD to provide credit for actions accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2014; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3213, dated October 12, 2004; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4217, dated October 12, 2004. We have reidentified the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
DAL also requested that we approve using later issued revisions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534.
We disagree with approving unspecified later revisions of the service information. When referring to a specific service bulletin in an AD, using the phrase, “or later FAA-approved revisions,” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. Once we issue a final rule, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service bulletin as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD.
DAL requested that we extend the compliance time from 24 months to 30 months. DAL stated that a 24-month compliance time does not provide the necessary time to procure parts and develop internal paperwork to accomplish the modifications. DAL explained that mandating a 24-month compliance time will result in several airplanes being missed during scheduled maintenance, which will result in requiring costly special visits that adversely impact passenger operations. DAL also stated it had not experienced problems with the cockpit door bonding during a service history of over 12 years and noted there is higher awareness to electrical wiring interconnect system (EWIS) issues, making wire chafing problems less likely. DAL concluded that a moderate extension to the compliance time should provide a sufficient level of safety without burdening the airlines unnecessarily.
We disagree with DAL's request. The compliance time has been determined by EASA and Airbus through the specific analysis to ensure continued operational safety of the affected airplanes. If an operator wishes to extend the compliance time, this can be done through a specific request for approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. The operator must justify in the request that an extension of the compliance time will provide an adequate level of safety (such as by accomplishment of specific inspections or tasks).
Airbus has specified a standard lead time of 90 calendar days from the date of a purchase order for component kits, which ensures sufficient time for planning the appropriate operator's action to modify the airplane and
DAL requested that we allow the use of industry standard consumable materials already stocked by the airlines, instead of burdening the airlines with procuring the specific consumables specified in the service information. DAL stated that there are many industry standard materials that fulfill the roles of each of the specific materials called out in the service bulletins that are used daily by every airline. DAL also stated that the use of these industry standard consumable materials will in no way reduce the level of safety of the modifications.
We disagree with DAL's request. DAL did not provide details on the specific consumable materials it proposes to use for the actions required by this proposed AD and did not provide any technical justification that the use of other consumable materials would provide an equivalent level of safety. In addition, for service information that contains “Required for Compliance” (RC) sections in the Accomplishment Instructions, the consumable materials in the RC sections must be used to comply with the AD requirements. Completion of all steps in accordance with the RC sections ensures that the actions required by this proposed AD address the identified unsafe condition. Operators may request approval for the use of other consumable materials through the AMOC process, under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
We estimate that this SNPRM affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it would take about 53 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this SNPRM. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,430 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $485,450, or $6,935 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this SNPRM may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 21, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 203066, Modification 203074, or Modification 203372 has been embodied in production.
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs); if modified in-service as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3161, or in production with Airbus Modification 50014.
(2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; all MSNs, if modified in-service as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4181, or in production with Airbus Modification 50014.
(3) Model A340-541 airplanes and Model A340-642 airplanes; all MSNs.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of chafed wiring at the upper left corner of the cockpit door. The affected wire bundle was not grounded on the cockpit door frame. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical shock injury to persons contacting the cockpit door.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the cockpit door frame structure and install bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014.
Except for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 52869 or Modification 53292 has been embodied in production: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, modify the upper cockpit door plate cover, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For configuration 1 airplanes identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3213, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2005.
(2) For airplanes identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 02, dated September 4, 2015: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4217, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2005.
(3) For airplanes identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5046, Revision 02, dated February 5, 2007.
Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD: For configuration 1 airplanes identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 02, dated May 18, 2015, install the noise-reduced cockpit door locking system (CDLS), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3254, Revision 02, dated December 13, 2004.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014, as applicable. These service bulletins are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(iv) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3213, dated October 12, 2004.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4217, dated October 12, 2004.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5046, dated October 12, 2004.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5046, Revision 01, dated May 11, 2005.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3254, dated October 25, 2004; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3254, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2004. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0037, dated March 2, 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 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).
This action proposes to modify Class D airspace at Grissom Air Reserve Base (ARB), IN, to allow for a lower Circling Minimum Descent Altitude, where Instrument Flight Rules Category E circling procedures are being used. This action would increase the area of the existing controlled airspace for Grissom ARB, IN. Additionally, this action would add Peru, Grissom ARB, IN to the subtitle of the airspace designation.
Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6006; Docket No. 15-AGL-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class D airspace at Grissom ARB, Peru, IN.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6006/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace at Grissom ARB, IN, to within a 5.8-mile radius of the airport. This increase would allow for a lower Circling Minimum Descent Altitude, where Instrument Flight Rules Category E circling procedures are being used. Also, this action would add Peru, Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN, to the subtitle of the airspace designation. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class D airspace areas are published in Section 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 5.8 mile radius of Grissom ARB. This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Trade Commission
Proposed amendments.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) seeks comments on proposed amendments to the Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles (“Fuel Economy Guide” or “Guide”) to reflect current Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) fuel economy labeling rules and to consider advertising claims prevalent in the market.
Comments must be received by August 8, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room C-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission issued the Fuel Economy Guide (16 CFR part 259) on September 10, 1975 (40 FR 42003) to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising for new automobiles and thus facilitate the use of fuel efficiency information in advertising. To accomplish this goal, the current Guide advises advertisers to disclose established EPA fuel economy estimates (
On April 28, 2009 (74 FR 19148), the Commission published a notice soliciting comments on proposed amendments to the Guide as part of its regulatory review program. The Commission then postponed its review in a June 1, 2011 notice (76 FR 31467) pending new fuel economy labeling requirements from the EPA and completion of the FTC's Alternative Fuels Rule (16 CFR part 309) review. The Commission explained that Fuel Economy Guide revisions would be premature before the conclusion of these regulatory proceedings. With those activities complete,
After reviewing the comments generated by the 2014 Notice
To aid the Commission in developing the proposed Guide amendments, the Commission conducted an Internet-based research study to explore consumer perceptions of certain fuel economy marketing claims.
Comments received in response to the 2014 Notice expressed general support for maintaining the Guide and provided general recommendations for improvement. Given this broad support, the Commission plans to retain the Guide. However, as detailed in this Notice, the Commission proposes to revise the Guide's format and update its content to address new technologies and new types of claims.
In expressing support for the Guide, several commenters discussed its benefits. NADA, for example, explained that the Guide helps prospective new vehicle purchasers obtain consistent and objective fuel economy information by advising manufacturers and dealers “to disclose fuel economy estimates in a fair, even-handed, and clear and conspicuous manner.” The consumer groups added that “automobile purchases are among the largest expenditures consumers make and bind them to purchase the fuel necessary to run their vehicles.” In their view, accurate mileage information benefits consumers, facilitates market functions, serves as a powerful incentive to increase fuel efficiency, and contributes significantly to the overall public good. These various comments are consistent with the Commission's past observation that “the Guide has been a benefit to consumers, providing fuel economy numbers in advertising that allow meaningful comparisons of different vehicle models.”
Commenters also provided Guide recommendations related to EPA label developments and market changes in recent years. For example, NADA and the Alliance emphasized the need to ensure the Guide reflects current EPA fuel economy labeling requirements. The Alliance added that the updated Guide should reflect new vehicle technologies, existing terminology, and the current EPA label format, while still providing advertisers flexibility in how they inform consumers about fuel economy. In addition, NADA and the Alliance recommended the Guide afford flexibility in the content and format of claims, as long as such claims maintain accuracy and clarity.
In response to these comments, the Commission proposes to update the Guide, as detailed below, to take into account current EPA and NHTSA requirements, new vehicle technology, and new terminology. In addition, where appropriate, the proposed revisions provide flexibility to advertisers as long as they avoid deceptive claims.
The Commission sought comments in the 2014 Notice on general issues related to the Guide, including a new format, technical definitions, citation format, types of fuel economy claims (including claims involving EPA-based MPG, non-EPA tests, vehicle configuration, fuel economy range, and alternative fueled vehicles), and limited-format advertising such as on mobile devices. The Commission discusses each of these issues below.
As discussed below, the Commission sought comment on specific types of advertising claims, including EPA-based miles-per-gallon claims, claims based on non-EPA tests, claims related to vehicle configuration, range of fuel economy claims, and AFV claims.
a. General Fuel Economy Claims
In releasing the Guide in 1975, the Commission explained that “when no specific fuel economy figure is cited in advertising, the use of such vague and ill-defined terms as `saves gas,' or `gas stingy engine' may . . . be deceptive by implying existence of some level of `good fuel economy' which may be perceived differently by different
The recent FTC consumer study supports these conclusions.
These varied interpretations are likely impossible for an advertiser to substantiate simultaneously. To overcome such potential deception, the Commission has consistently recommended that advertisers disclose the EPA MPG ratings in advertisements that contain general fuel economy claims. Such ratings adequately qualify general fuel economy claims by providing clear objective information that allows consumers to compare competing models and thus mitigates the deceptive conclusions consumers may draw from general claims. Given the results of the research and the overwhelming commenter support for the existing guidance, the Commission does not propose to change it.
b. Combined EPA MPG Rating as Default Disclosure
The consumer groups argued that including all three ratings is the best way to avoid deception, though they noted the combined number alone may be appropriate in some cases. In addition, Rodriguez added that advertisements should include fuel economy ratings for both highway and city because evidence suggests that typical driving time is almost evenly split between the two, contrary to the EPA combined estimate, which weights 55% city and 45% highway. In Rodriguez's view, such city and highway disclosures allow for more accurate fuel economy comparisons.
c. Single Mileage Ratings
Other commenters, particularly industry members, disagreed. For instance, NADA argued that advertisements containing a single fuel economy rating are not inherently unfair or deceptive. The Alliance agreed, stating that advertisers should have the flexibility to provide information that they believe is most relevant for each vehicle.
The FTC's consumer study supports this approach. For example, when shown a single highway mileage claim (
In addition, respondents were able to distinguish between highway and combined driving ranges when asked whether they expected to achieve a certain mileage rating if they used the advertised vehicle for
The research therefore suggests that consumers are not deceived by single mileage claims as long as the claim specifies the type of driving involved (
The consumer groups, however, stated that “up to” claims are deceptive and, to avoid such deception, mileage ratings in ads must reflect the “vehicle configuration expected to be most popular for that year.” If a specific model configuration has a better fuel economy rating, the groups argued that the advertisement can present that rating in addition to the MPG of the most popular version.
However, when respondents viewed a more detailed, qualified claim explaining that “up to” referred to a specific model version (Q3e (close-ended question)), the confusion decreased significantly, with a majority (51.9%) indicating the claim meant a version of the advertised model was rated at 30 miles per gallon.
In sum, the consumer study strongly suggests that unqualified “up to” claims are likely to be deceptive where the advertiser intends to communicate that a version of the advertised model will achieve the stated fuel economy rating. In addition, under the same circumstances, the results suggest that it is difficult to fashion qualifying language that adequately avoids consumer confusion. However, given available information, the Commission cannot conclude that such “up to” claims are categorically deceptive. Therefore, the proposed guidance advises advertisers to ensure that qualifying language adequately clarifies such claims to prevent deception.
Moreover, although one commenter recommended that the Guide discourage using the term “estimate,” there is no indication this term is deceptive other than that comment. In addition, EPA regulations and the underlying statute employ this term, and it has appeared on EPA labels and in advertising for decades.
Conversely, the consumer groups argued the Guide should “prevent the use of anything but standardized EPA MPG ratings” because such ratings provide the only means to avoid “significant deception.” The groups explained that the EPA ratings have become the standard on which manufacturers compete. In their view, many different techniques can produce mileage estimates, and the dissemination of such alternative ratings “would substantially increase deceptive advertising.” They argued that the EPA numbers, which appear on every vehicle sold in the U.S., must appear in the advertisements to avoid deception and confusion. They further asserted that EPA's single rating system allows for “true competition and avoids the deception associated with multiple rating systems” and different testing methodologies. In their view, alternative (non-EPA) rating results prevent vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons and lead to “manipulation and skepticism.”
The Alliance provided two specific suggestions. First, it recommended the Guide allow fuel economy advertisers to make abbreviated, but clearly understandable, disclosures of EPA label values in restricted-format media (
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 8, 2016. Write “Proposed Fuel Economy Guide Revisions” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Fuel Economy Guide Amendments, R711008” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Advertising, Fuel economy, Trade practices.
For the reasons set forth in this document, the Commission proposes to revise 16 CFR part 259 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 41-58.
This Guide contains administrative interpretations of laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. Specifically, the Guide addresses the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of fuel economy information in advertising for new automobiles. This guidance provides the basis for voluntary compliance with the law by advertisers and endorsers. Practices inconsistent with this Guide may result in corrective action by the Commission under Section 5 if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe that the practices fall within the scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute. The Guide sets forth the general principles that the Commission will use in such an investigation together with examples illustrating the application of those principles. The Guide does not purport to cover every possible use of fuel economy in advertising. Whether a particular advertisement is deceptive will depend on the specific advertisement at issue.
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(2) Electricity for electrically-powered automobiles; or
(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles;
(4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles; or
(5) any other fuel type used in a vehicle for which EPA requires a fuel economy label under EPA regulations.
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
To prevent deceptive claims, qualifications and disclosures should be clear, prominent, and understandable. To make disclosures clear and prominent, marketers should use plain language and sufficiently large type for a person to see and understand them, should place disclosures in close proximity to the qualified claim, and should avoid making inconsistent statements or using distracting elements that could undercut or contradict the disclosure. The disclosures should also appear in the same format as the claim. For example, for television advertisements, if the estimated MPG appears in the video, the disclosure recommended by this Guide should appear in the visual format; if the estimated MPG is audio, the disclosure should be in audio.
(a)
(b)
A new car advertisement states: “This vehicle gets great mileage.” The claim is likely to convey a variety of meanings, including that the vehicle has a better MPG rating than all or almost all other cars on the market. However, the advertised vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimates are only slightly better than the average vehicle on the market. Because the advertiser cannot substantiate that the vehicle's rating is better than all or almost all other cars on the market, the advertisement is likely to be deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not be able to substantiate other reasonable interpretations of the claim. To avoid deception, the advertisement should disclose the vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimate (
An advertisement states: “This car gets great gas mileage compared to other compact cars.” The claim is likely to convey a variety of meanings, including that the vehicle gets better gas mileage than all or almost all other compact cars. However, the vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimates are only slightly better than average compared to other models in its class. Because the advertiser cannot substantiate that the vehicle's rating is better than all or almost all other compact cars, the advertisement is likely to be deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not be able to substantiate other reasonable interpretations of the claim. To address this problem, the advertisement should disclose the vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimate.
(c)
An automobile advertisement states that model “XYZ gets great gas mileage in town.” However, the advertisement does not disclose the EPA city fuel economy estimate. Instead, it only discloses the EPA highway fuel economy estimate, which is higher than the model's city estimate. This claim likely conveys to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers that the highway estimate disclosed in the advertisement applies to city driving. Thus, the advertisement is likely to mislead consumers. To remedy this problem, the advertisement should disclose the EPA city fuel economy estimate (
A new car advertisement states that model “XZA gives you great gas mileage” but only provides the EPA highway fuel economy estimate. Given the likely inconsistency between the general fuel economy claim, which does not reference a specific type of driving, and the disclosed EPA highway estimate, the advertisement is likely to mislead consumers. To address this problem, the advertisement should disclose the EPA combined estimate (
An advertisement states “according to EPA estimates, new cars in this class are rated at between 20 and 32 MPG, while the EPA estimate for this car is an impressive 35 MPG highway.” The advertisement is likely to imply that the 20 to 32 MPG range and 35 MPG estimate are comparable. In fact, the “20 and 32 MPG” range reflects EPA city estimates. Therefore, the advertisement is likely deceptive. To address this problem, the advertisement should only provide an apples-to-apples comparison—either using the highway range for the class or using the city estimate for the advertised vehicle.
(d)
An automobile manufacture's Web site states, without qualification, “This car gets 40 MPG on the highway.” The claim likely conveys to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers that they will achieve 40 MPG driving this vehicle on the highway. The advertiser based its claim on an EPA highway estimate. However, EPA provides that estimate primarily for comparison purposes—it does not necessarily reflect real world driving results. Therefore, the claim is likely deceptive. In addition, the use of the term “gets,” without qualification, may lead some consumers to believe not only that they can, but will consistently, achieve the stated mileage. To address these problems, the advertisement should clarify that the MPG value is an estimate by stating “EPA estimate” or equivalent language.
(e)
A radio commercial for the “XTQ” car states that the vehicle “is rated at an estimated 28 MPG in the city” but does not disclose that an EPA test is the source of this MPG estimate. This advertisement may convey that the source of this test is an entity other than EPA. Therefore, the advertisement may be deceptive.
(f)
A television commercial for the car model “ZTA” informs consumers that the ZTA is rated at “25 miles per gallon according to the EPA estimate” but does not disclose whether this number is a highway, city, or combined estimate. The advertisement likely conveys to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers that the 25 MPG figure reflects normal driving (
(g)
An advertisement claims that sports car X “outpaces other cars' gas mileage.” The claim likely conveys a variety of meanings to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers, including that this vehicle has a higher MPG rating than all or almost all other vehicles on the market. Although the vehicle's MPG rating compares favorably to other sports cars, its fuel economy is only better than roughly half of all new automobiles on the market. Therefore, the claim is likely deceptive.
(h)
A manufacturer's advertisement states that model “PDQ” gets “great gas mileage” but depicts the MPG numbers for a similar model type known as the “Econo-PDQ.” The advertisement is likely to convey that the claimed MPG rating applies to all types of the PDQ model. However, the “Econo-PDQ” has a better fuel economy rating than other types of the “PDQ” model. Therefore, the advertisement is likely to be deceptive.
(i) “
An advertisement claims that a vehicle model VXR will achieve “up to 40 MPG on the highway” without further explanation. The advertisement is based on a particularly efficient type of this model, with specific options, with an EPA highway estimate of 40 MPG. However, other types of model VXR have lower EPA MPG estimates. A significant proportion of reasonable consumers likely interpret the “up to” claim as applying to all VXR model types. Therefore, the advertisement is likely deceptive. To address this problem, the advertisement should clearly explain that the 40 MPG rating does not apply to all model types of the VXR or use language other than “up to” that better conveys the basis for the claim.
(j)
An automobile advertisement states: “This flex-fuel powerhouse has a 30 MPG highway rating according to the EPA estimate.” The advertisement likely implies that the 30 MPG rating applies to both gasoline and alternative fuel operation. In fact, the ethanol EPA estimate for this vehicle is 25 MPG. Therefore, the advertisement is likely deceptive.
(k)
An advertisement for an electric vehicle states: “This car has a great driving range.” This claim likely conveys a variety of meanings, including that the vehicle has a better driving range than all or almost all other electric vehicles. However, the EPA driving range estimate for this vehicle is only slightly better than roughly half of all other electric vehicles on the market. Because the advertiser cannot substantiate that the vehicle's driving range is better than all or almost all other electric vehicles, the advertisement is likely to be deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not be able to substantiate other reasonable interpretations of the claim. To address this problem, the advertisement should disclose the vehicle's EPA driving range estimate (
(l)
(i) That the fuel economy or driving range information is based on a non-EPA test;
(ii) The source of the non-EPA test;
(iii) The EPA fuel economy estimates or EPA driving range estimates for the vehicle; and
(iv) All driving conditions or vehicle configurations simulated by the non-EPA test that are different from those used in the EPA test. Such conditions and variables may include, but are not limited to, road or dynamometer test, average speed, range of speed, hot or cold start, temperature, and design or equipment differences.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
An internet advertisement states: “Independent driving experts took the QXT car for a weekend spin and managed to get 55 miles-per-gallon under a variety of driving conditions.” It does not disclose the actual EPA fuel economy estimates, nor does it explain how conditions during the “weekend spin” differed from those under the EPA tests. This advertisement likely conveys that the 55 MPG figure is the same or comparable to an EPA fuel economy estimate for the vehicle. This claim is likely to be deceptive because it fails to disclose that fuel economy information is based on a non-EPA test, the source of the non-EPA test, the EPA fuel economy estimates for the vehicle, and all driving conditions or vehicle configurations simulated by the non-EPA test that are different from those used in the EPA test.
An advertisement states: “The XZY electric car has a driving range of 110 miles per charge in summer conditions according to our expert's test.” It provides no additional information regarding this driving range claim. This advertisement likely conveys that this 110 driving range figure is comparable to an EPA driving range estimate for the vehicle. The advertisement is likely deceptive because it does not clearly state that the test is a non-EPA test; it does not provide the EPA estimated driving range; and it does not explain how conditions referred to in the advertisement differed from those under the EPA tests. Without this information, consumers are likely to confuse the claims with range estimates derived from the official EPA test procedures.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The Department of Justice (Department or DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is extending the comment period for its proposal to exempt “The Next Generation Identification (NGI) System,” JUSTICE/FBI-009, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, published in the
Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking published May 5, 2016 (81 FR 27288) must be submitted on or before July 6, 2016.
Address all comments to the Privacy Analyst, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530-0001 or facsimile 202-307-0693. To ensure proper handling, please reference either this CPCLO Order No., or the CPCLO Order No. from the original notice of proposed rulemaking (CPCLO Order No. 003-2016) on your correspondence. You may review an electronic version of the proposed rule at
Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on the day the
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the
Roxane M. Panarella, Assistant General Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit, Office of the General Counsel, FBI, Washington, DC 20535-0001, telephone 304-625-4000.
On May 5, 2016, the Department requested comments on its proposal to modify an existing FBI system of records notice titled, “Fingerprint Identification Records System (FIRS),” JUSTICE/FBI-009, and its proposal to amend the Department's Privacy Act regulations by establishing an exemption for records in this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).
Both the notice of a modified system of records notice and notice of proposed rulemaking for this system of records originally provided that comments must be received by June 6, 2016. The Department has received requests to extend these comment periods. The Department believes that extending the comment periods would be appropriate in order to provide the public additional time to consider and comment on the proposals addressed in these notices. Therefore, the Department is extending both public comment periods for 30 days, until July 6, 2016. Elsewhere in the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend PBGC's regulation on Mergers and Transfers Between Multiemployer Plans to implement section 121 of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. The proposed rule would also reorganize and update the existing regulation.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2016.
Comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1212-AB31, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph J. Shelton (
This rulemaking is needed to implement statutory changes under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) affecting mergers of multiemployer plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The proposed rule also would reorganize and update the existing regulatory requirements applicable to mergers and transfers between multiemployer plans.
PBGC's legal authority for this action is based on section 4002(b)(3) of ERISA, which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA, and section 4231 of ERISA, which sets forth the statutory requirements for mergers and transfers between multiemployer plans.
Section 121 of MPRA amends the existing rules under section 4231 of ERISA by adding a new section 4231(e), which clarifies PBGC's authority to
The proposed rule would provide guidance on the process for requesting a facilitated merger under section 4231(e) of ERISA, including a request for financial assistance under section 4231(e)(2). The proposed rule would also reorganize and update the existing regulation.
PBGC is a Federal corporation created under title IV of ERISA to guarantee the payment of pension benefits earned by more than 40 million American workers and retirees in over 23,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans.
PBGC administers two insurance programs—one for single-employer defined benefit pension plans, and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. This proposed rule would apply only to the multiemployer program.
Under section 4231(b) of ERISA, mergers of two or more multiemployer plans and transfers of assets and liabilities between multiemployer plans must comply with four requirements:
(1) The plan sponsor must notify PBGC at least 120 days before the effective date of the merger or transfer;
(2) No participant's or beneficiary's accrued benefit may be lower immediately after the effective date of the merger or transfer than the benefit immediately before that date;
(3) The benefits of participants and beneficiaries must not be reasonably expected to be subject to suspension as a result of plan insolvency under section 4245 of ERISA; and
(4) An actuarial valuation of the assets and liabilities of each of the affected plans must have been performed during the plan year preceding the effective date of the merger or transfer, based upon the most recent data available as of the day before the start of that plan year, or as prescribed by PBGC's regulation.
Section 4231(a) of ERISA grants PBGC authority to vary these requirements by regulation. Part 4231 of PBGC's regulations implements and interprets these requirements by providing a procedure under which plan sponsors must notify PBGC of any merger or transfer between multiemployer plans.
In December 2014, Congress enacted, and the President signed, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015,
Section 201 of MPRA amended the rules under section 305 of ERISA to add a new “critical and declining” status for financially troubled multiemployer plans (described below in the discussion of “multiemployer facilitated mergers under MPRA”). Generally, a plan is in critical and declining status if it is in critical status under any subparagraph of section 305(b)(2), and is projected to become insolvent within 15-20 years. Plans in critical and declining status may suspend benefits under section 305(e)(9) of ERISA under certain conditions. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has interpretative jurisdiction over the subject matter in section 305.
Sections 121 and 122 of MPRA provide PBGC with new statutory authority to assist critical and declining status plans under certain conditions. Section 121 of MPRA, which is the subject of this rulemaking, authorizes PBGC to facilitate multiemployer plan mergers, including with financial assistance (within the meaning of section 4261) if certain statutory conditions—such as the condition that one or more of the plans involved be in critical and declining status—are met. Section 122 of MPRA amended section 4233 of ERISA to create a new statutory framework for partitions of critical and declining status plans.
Finally, section 131 of MPRA increased the annual premium that multiemployer plans pay to PBGC for 2015 from $13 to $26 per participant. For plan years beginning after 2015, the annual premium increases based on increases in the national average wage index. The annual premium for 2016 is $27 per participant.
PBGC provides financial assistance under section 4261 of ERISA to multiemployer plans that are or will be insolvent under section 4245 of ERISA. Generally, a plan is insolvent when it is unable to pay benefits when due during the plan year. PBGC provides financial assistance to an insolvent plan in the form of a loan sufficient to pay its participants' and beneficiaries' guaranteed benefits.
In a few cases before the enactment of MPRA, PBGC provided financial assistance (within the meaning of section 4261 of ERISA) to facilitate the merger of a soon-to-be insolvent multiemployer plan into a larger, more financially secure multiemployer plan. The financial assistance provided was a single payment that covered the cost of guaranteed benefits under the failing plan. In exchange, the larger, more financially secure plan assumed responsibility for paying the full plan benefits of the participants and beneficiaries in the failing plan with which it merged. As a result, the participants and beneficiaries in the failing plan received more than they would have in the absence of a facilitated merger from a financially secure plan that was more likely to remain ongoing. In addition, the financial assistance provided was generally less than PBGC's valuation of the present value of future financial assistance to the failing plan.
For a number of reasons, including the deteriorating financial condition of PBGC's multiemployer insurance program, PBGC was only able to facilitate a few financial assistance mergers before MPRA.
Section 4231(e)(1) of ERISA provides that upon request by the plan sponsors, PBGC may take such actions as it deems appropriate to promote and facilitate the merger of two or more multiemployer plans. Facilitation may include training, technical assistance, mediation, communication with stakeholders, and support with related requests to other government agencies. The decision to facilitate a merger is within PBGC's discretion. Furthermore, before PBGC may exercise this discretion, it must first determine—in consultation with the Participant and Plan Sponsor
Under section 4231(e)(2), PBGC may also provide financial assistance (within the meaning of section 4261) to facilitate a merger that it determines is necessary to enable one or more of the plans involved to avoid or postpone insolvency, if the following statutory conditions are satisfied:
• Financial assistance will reduce PBGC's expected long-term loss with respect to the plans involved; and
• Financial assistance is necessary for the merged plan to become or remain solvent.
Section 4231(e)(2) requires that, not later than 14 days after the provision of financial assistance, PBGC provide notice of the financial assistance to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives; the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; the Committee on Finance of the Senate; and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
On February 18, 2015, PBGC published in the
In general, commenters expressed strong support for MPRA's changes to the merger rules under section 4231 of ERISA, and urged PBGC to issue timely guidance to the public on the types of information, documents, data, and actuarial projections needed for a request to be complete. Many of these same commenters urged that whenever possible and consistent with statutory requirements, any new regulatory information requirements should be based on information that plans are already required to prepare, or information that plans could easily develop.
A number of commenters also suggested that PBGC provide guidance on the factors and criteria it will use to evaluate proposed facilitated mergers, while another suggested that proposed facilitated mergers should be analyzed individually on a case-by-case basis. In addition, one commenter suggested that PBGC provide guidance on any general limitations it may establish on the amount of financial assistance available for facilitated mergers.
PBGC considered these and other comments and decided it will determine whether to provide further guidance on the evaluation criteria for facilitated mergers, and any limitations PBGC may impose relating to the amount of financial assistance available, based on the experience it gains implementing this proposed rule. While the proposed rule does not impose any additional limitations on the amount of financial assistance available for financial assistance mergers, sections 4231(e)(2) and 4233 of ERISA require PBGC to certify that its ability to meet existing financial obligations to other plans will
With respect to the eligibility requirements for a facilitated merger, a few commenters noted that unlike the statutory conditions for a partition under section 4233 of ERISA, which require, among other things, a finding that the plan sponsor has taken all reasonable measures to avoid insolvency, including maximum benefit suspensions, there is no explicit requirement in section 4231(e) to suspend benefits. Given the absence of such a requirement, these commenters urged PBGC
PBGC agrees with the commenters and consistent with the express terms of the statute, this proposed rule would neither require nor preclude a plan sponsor's application for both benefit suspensions under section 305(e)(9)(G) and a facilitated merger under section 4231(e). PBGC recognizes, however, that although benefit suspensions are
Before considering an integrated transaction involving benefit suspensions and a facilitated merger, however, plan sponsors must carefully consider how the various requirements under sections 305(e)(9) and 4231 would apply to such a transaction. For example, a critical and declining status plan could merge into a large, well-funded multiemployer plan. In such a case, to the extent any of the benefits previously provided by the critical and declining status plan had been subject to suspension under section 305(e)(9) or become subject to suspension at the same time that the merger occurs, the plan sponsor of the merged plan would become responsible for making the annual determinations necessary for continued benefit suspensions under section 305(e)(9) and the regulations thereunder. Under section 305(e)(9)(C)(ii) of ERISA and the regulations thereunder, benefits may continue to be suspended for a plan year only if the plan sponsor determines, in a written record to be maintained throughout the period of the benefit suspension, that although all reasonable measures to avoid insolvency have been and continue to be taken, the plan is still projected to become insolvent unless benefits are suspended. Absent these determinations, restoration of the suspended benefits would be required.
Finally, one commenter expressed concern that a narrow interpretation of section 4231(e)(2)(B)(ii) would effectively preclude a small, critical and declining status plan from receiving financial assistance to merge into a large, financially healthy multiemployer plan. That section provides, in relevant part, that PBGC must reasonably expect that financial assistance is necessary for the
As explained more fully below in the section-by-section discussion, PBGC does
Similarly, section 4231(e)(2)(A) requires only that
A more detailed discussion of the proposed rule and the RFI comments follows.
The proposed rule would amend part 4231 of PBGC's regulations to implement MPRA's changes to section 4231 of ERISA. The proposed rule also would reorganize and update the existing regulation to reflect other changes in law.
Under the proposed rule, part 4231 would provide guidance on: (1) The process for submitting a notice of merger or transfer, and a request for a compliance determination or facilitated merger; (2) the information required in such notices and requests; (3) the notification process for PBGC decisions on requests for facilitated mergers; and (4) the scope of PBGC's jurisdiction over a merged plan that received financial assistance. The proposed rule also would reorganize part 4231 by dividing it into subparts. Subpart A would contain the general merger and transfer rules. Subpart B would provide guidance on procedures and information requirements for facilitated mergers, including those involving financial assistance.
In most instances, implementation of the mergers and transfers addressed in this proposed rule, including facilitated mergers, will involve conduct that is also subject to the fiduciary responsibility standards of part 4 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA. Among other things, these standards require that a fiduciary with respect to a plan act prudently, solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries, and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan. The fact that a merger or transfer, including a facilitated merger, may satisfy title IV of ERISA and the regulations thereunder is not determinative of whether it satisfies the requirements of part 4 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA (other than section 406(a) and (b)(2), in the event of a compliance determination).
Finally, the proposed rule would be applicable to mergers and transfers for which a notice, and, if applicable, request for a facilitated merger are filed with PBGC on or after the effective date of the final rule. If a plan sponsor chooses to submit an application for a facilitated merger before the issuance of a final rule, then the plan sponsor may need to revise or supplement its request to take into account the requirements under the final rule.
Section 4231.1 of the proposed rule describes the purpose and scope of part 4231, which is to prescribe notice requirements for mergers and transfers of assets or liabilities among multiemployer plans and to interpret other requirements under section 4231 of ERISA.
Section 4231.2 of the proposed rule would amend the current regulation by adding new definitions, and by moving existing definitions defined elsewhere in the current regulation to § 4231.2. For example, the proposed rule would move the existing definition of “effective date” from § 4231.8(a) to § 4231.2.
Under the proposed rule, the term “facilitated merger” would mean a merger of two or more multiemployer plans facilitated by PBGC under section 4231(e) of ERISA, including a merger that is facilitated with financial assistance under section 4231(e)(2).
The term “financial assistance” would mean financial assistance under section 4261, which may be in the form of one or more payments.
The term “financial assistance merger” would mean a facilitated merger for which PBGC provides financial assistance under section 4231(e)(2).
Consistent with the definition of “merged plan” in § 4211.2, the term “merged plan” would mean a plan that is the result of the merger of two or more multiemployer plans.
The proposed rule also would amend the existing definition of “significantly affected plan” in § 4231.2 to include a plan in endangered or critical status, as defined in section 305(b) of ERISA,
In PBGC's view, endangered and critical status plans generally present a greater risk of insolvency, and when these plans engage in non-de minimis transfers their risk of insolvency may increase. Consistent with this view, the proposed rule would expand the definition of “significantly affected plan” to include endangered and critical status plans engaging in non-de minimis transfers. Although the proposed rule would apply the stricter plan solvency test under § 4231.6(b) to non-de minimis transfers involving endangered and critical status plans, that test would only apply to
Section 4231.3 of the proposed rule provides guidance on the requirements for mergers and transfers. As under the current regulation, § 4231.3(a) of the proposed rule sets forth the statutory criteria under section 4231(b) of ERISA. The proposed rule also would amend the current regulation to clearly provide that plan sponsors may engage in informal consultations with PBGC to discuss proposed mergers and transfers. As noted above in the discussion of the RFI comments, informal consultation is particularly important in the context of a proposed financial assistance merger because PBGC's ability to provide financial assistance will depend on, among other things, its ability to meet existing financial assistance obligations to other plans.
Section 4231.4 of the current regulation is unchanged under the proposed rule. That section provides guidance on the requirement under section 4231(b)(2) of ERISA that no participant's or beneficiary's accrued benefit may be lower immediately after the effective date of a merger or transfer than the benefit immediately before that date.
Section 4231.5 of the current regulation provides guidance on the actuarial valuation requirement under section 4231(b)(4) of ERISA. For a plan that is not a significantly affected plan, it provides that the actuarial valuation requirement under section 4231(b)(4) is satisfied if an actuarial valuation has been performed for the plan based on the plan's assets and liabilities as of a date not more than three years before the date on which the notice of the merger or transfer is filed. When the regulation was originally published, section 302(c)(9) of ERISA required plans to have an actuarial valuation performed every three years, and PBGC adopted that timeframe for non-significantly affected plans.
Because multiemployer plans are now required under section 304(c)(7) of ERISA
Section 4231.6 of the current regulation provides guidance on “plan solvency” tests that operate as regulatory safe harbors under section 4231(b)(3) of ERISA. Section 4231(b)(3) prohibits a merger or transfer unless “the benefits of participants and beneficiaries are not reasonably expected to be subject to suspension under section 4245.” Section 4245, in turn, provides that an insolvent plan must suspend benefits that are above the level guaranteed by PBGC to the extent the plan has insufficient assets to pay such benefits.
For a plan that is not a significantly affected plan, § 4231.6(a) of the current regulation provides that the plan solvency requirement under section 4231(b)(3) of ERISA and § 4231.3(a)(3)(i) is satisfied if one of the following tests are met:
(1) The expected fair market value of plan assets immediately after the merger or transfer equals or exceeds five times the benefit payments for the last plan year ending before the proposed effective date of the merger or transfer, or
(2) In each of the first five plan years beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the merger or transfer, expected plan assets plus expected contributions and investment earnings equal or exceed expected expenses and benefit payments for the plan year.
The proposed rule would amend and reorder these tests in the following manner. First, under § 4231.6(a)(1) of the proposed rule, a plan will satisfy the plan solvency requirement if in each of the first ten plan years beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the merger or transfer, the plan's expected fair market value of assets plus expected contributions and investment earnings equal or exceed expected expenses and benefit payments for the plan year.
Alternatively, under § 4231.6(a)(2) of the proposed rule, a plan will satisfy the plan solvency requirement if the plan's expected fair market value of assets immediately after the merger or transfer equals or exceeds ten times the benefit payments for the last plan year ending before the proposed effective date of the merger or transfer.
Accordingly, in addition to reordering § 4231.6(a)(1) and (2), the proposed rule would change the period of years in § 4231.6(a)(2) of the current regulation from “five plan years” to “ten plan years,” and the multiple in § 4231.6(a)(1) from “five times the benefit payments” to “ten times the benefit payments.” Based on PBGC's experience under the multiemployer program since the regulation was first published, PBGC believes that the proposed changes will provide a better demonstration that benefits are not reasonably expected to be subject to suspension under section 4245 of ERISA as a result of insolvency. At the same time, PBGC recognizes that the majority of multiemployer plan mergers will broaden the contribution base and stabilize the plans involved. Therefore, as is the case under the current regulation for a plan that cannot satisfy the solvency tests under § 4231.6(a), the proposed rule would continue to allow an enrolled actuary to “otherwise demonstrate” that benefits under the plan are not reasonably expected to be subject to suspension under section 4245 of ERISA as a result of insolvency.
Section 4231.6(b) of the current regulation sets forth a more rigorous solvency test for significantly affected plans. The proposed rule would amend § 4231.6(b)(2) by changing the requirement that assets cover benefit payments for the first “five” years after the proposed effective date to “ten” years. In addition, the proposed rule would amend § 4231.6(b)(4)(i) by changing the amortization period from 25 to 15 years to reflect the amortization period generally applicable to changes in funding of multiemployer plans under PPA.
Section 4231.7 of the current regulation sets forth special rules for de minimis mergers and transfers. That section would remain unchanged under the proposed rule.
Section 4231.8 of the current regulation sets forth requirements for notices of mergers and transfers, and requests for compliance determinations under section 4231(c). In general, a notice of a merger or transfer must be filed not less than 120 days, or not less than 45 days in the case of a merger for which a compliance determination is not requested, before the effective date of a merger or transfer. Section 4231.8(f) permits PBGC to waive the timing of the notice requirements under certain circumstances.
In the case of a facilitated merger, the proposed rule would amend § 4231.8(a) to require that notice of a proposed facilitated merger be filed not less than 270 days before the proposed effective date of a facilitated merger. As noted above in the discussion of § 4231.2, the proposed rule would also move the definition of “effective date” from § 4231.8(a)(1) to § 4231.2. Finally, the proposed rule would move the information requirements contained in § 4231.8(e) to a new § 4231.9.
Section 4231.9 of the proposed rule would generally retain the existing information requirements in § 4231.8(e) with minor modifications. For example, the de minimis exception contained in § 4231.8(e)(6) would not apply to a request for a financial assistance merger.
Section 4231.10 of the proposed rule (§ 4231.9 of the existing regulation) describes the additional information required for a request for a compliance determination. The proposed rule would amend this section to make clear that a request for a compliance determination must be filed contemporaneously with a notice of merger or transfer. In addition, the proposed rule would delete the “place of filing” provision in § 4231.9(1) as that information is now contained in § 4231.8(e), and would delete certain information requirements as those requirements are now contained in § 4231.9(e).
Section 4231.11 of the proposed rule (§ 4231.10 of the existing regulation) describes the requirements for actuarial calculations and assumptions. The proposed rule would conform the regulation to section 304(c)(3) of ERISA, would specify that calculations must be performed by an enrolled actuary, and would expand the bases upon which PBGC may require updated calculations.
Section 4231.12 of the proposed rule provides general guidance on a request for a facilitated merger. A request for a facilitated merger, including a financial assistance merger, must satisfy the requirements of section 4231(b) of ERISA and subpart A of the regulation, in addition to section 4231(e) of ERISA and subpart B. The procedures set forth in the proposed rule would represent the exclusive means by which PBGC will approve a request for a facilitated merger, including a financial assistance merger. Any financial assistance provided by PBGC will be limited by section 4261 of ERISA and with respect to the guaranteed benefits of the plans involved in the merger that are in critical and declining status. In addition, as noted above, because the funds available for financial assistance mergers under section 4231(e), partitions under section 4233, and financial assistance to insolvent plans under 4261, are derived from the same source—the revolving fund for basic benefits guaranteed under section 4022A (the multiemployer revolving fund)—it is anticipated that the amount of financial assistance available to a critical and declining status plan for a financial assistance merger generally will not exceed the amount available to that plan for a partition (and could be less). Finally, while PBGC expects that in most cases the financial assistance it provides in a facilitated merger will be in the form of periodic payments, PBGC agrees with the RFI comment advocating flexibility in the structure of financial assistance (
Section 4231.12 of the proposed rule would also provide guidance on the information required for a request for a facilitated merger. It states that a request must include the information required under §§ 4231.9 (notice of merger or transfer) and 4231.10 (request for compliance determination), as well as a detailed narrative description with supporting documentation demonstrating that the proposed merger is in the interests of participants and beneficiaries of at least one of the plans, and is not reasonably expected to be adverse to the overall interests of the participants and beneficiaries of any of the plans. The narrative description and supporting documentation should reflect, among other things, any material efficiencies expected as a result of the merger and the basis for those expectations.
In addition, a request for a financial assistance merger must contain the information described in § 4231.13 (plan information), § 4231.14 (financial assistance merger information), § 4231.15 (actuarial and financial information), and § 4231.16 (participant census data). The proposed rule provides that PBGC may require additional information to determine whether the requirements of section 4231(e) of ERISA are met or to enable it to facilitate the merger. Finally, § 4231.12 of the proposed rule would impose an affirmative obligation on the plan sponsors to promptly notify PBGC in writing if the plan sponsor(s) discovers that any material fact or representation contained in or relating to the request for a facilitated merger, or in any supporting documents, is no longer accurate, or has been omitted.
Section 4231.13 of the proposed rule would provide guidance on the various categories of plan-related information required for a request for a financial assistance merger, such as trust agreements, formal plan documents, summary plan descriptions, summaries of material modifications, and rehabilitation or funding improvement plans. PBGC expects that most, if not all, of the information required under this section should be readily available and accessible by plan sponsors.
Section 4231.14 of the proposed rule sets forth information requirements relating to the proposed structure of a financial assistance merger. The information required includes a detailed description of the financial assistance merger, including any larger integrated transaction of which the proposed merger is a part (including, but not limited to, an application for suspension of benefits under section 305(e)(9)(G) of ERISA), and the estimated total amount of financial assistance the plan sponsors request for each year. It would also require a narrative description of the events that led to the sponsors' decision to request a financial assistance merger, and the significant risks and assumptions relating to the proposed financial assistance merger and the projections provided.
Section 4231.15 of the proposed rule would identify the actuarial and financial information required for a request for a financial assistance merger. The first two information requirements relate to plan actuarial reports and actuarial certifications, which should ordinarily be within the possession of the plan sponsors or plan actuaries. Sections 4231.15(c)-(f) of the regulation would require the submission of certain actuarial and financial information specific to the proposed financial assistance merger, which are necessary for PBGC to evaluate the solvency requirements under section 4231(e)(2) of ERISA.
Under § 4231.15 of the proposed rule, each critical and declining plan must demonstrate that its projected date of insolvency without the merger is sooner than the projected date of insolvency of the merged plan. The plan(s) may take the proposed financial assistance into account in this demonstration.
Section 4231.15 of the proposed rule would also provide guidance on the required demonstration that financial assistance is necessary for the merged plan to become or remain solvent. Under the proposed rule, the type of projection required will depend on whether the merged plan would be in critical status under section 305(b) of ERISA immediately following the merger (without taking the proposed financial assistance into account), as reasonably determined by the actuary. For example, if a critical and declining status plan merges into an endangered status plan, and the actuary anticipates that the merged plan would not meet minimum funding requirements for the coming year without financial assistance, then the merged plan would be in critical status for purposes of the projections. Alternatively, if the actuary anticipates that the merged plan would not be described in section 305(b)(2)(A)-(D) of ERISA immediately after the merger, then the merged plan would not be in critical status for purposes of the projections (even if the merged plan could elect to be in critical status).
Under the proposed rule, the plan's enrolled actuary may use any reasonable estimation for determining the expected funded status of the merged plan. Under an optional approach, the funded status of the merged plan could be determined based on the combined data and projections underlying the status certifications of each of the plans for the plan year immediately preceding the merger (including any selected updates in the data based on the experience of the plans in the immediately preceding plan year). PBGC requests comments on this issue, including methods to determine whether the merged plan would be in critical status.
Under § 4231.15(f)(1) of the proposed rule, if the merged plan would be in critical status under section 305(b) of ERISA (without taking the proposed financial assistance into account), the plans must demonstrate that financial assistance is necessary for the merged plan to “avoid insolvency” under section 305(e)(9)(D)(iv) of ERISA and the regulations thereunder (excluding stochastic projections). This more rigorous solvency standard is consistent with the “emergence” test under section 305(e)(4)(B) of ERISA, which requires a plan in critical status to show that is not projected to become insolvent for any of the 30 succeeding plan years.
If the merged plan would
In summary, under the proposed rule, critical status plans would be subject to a different solvency standard than non-critical status plans. This is consistent with the RFI comments that suggested determining solvency on a case-by-case basis, and maintains flexibility in the solvency demonstration for a merged plan that would
Section 4231.16 of the proposed rule would identify the types of participant census data to include with a request for a financial assistance merger.
Section 4231.17 of the proposed rule would describe the manner in which PBGC will notify a plan sponsor of PBGC's decision on a request for a facilitated merger. PBGC will approve or deny a request for a facilitated merger in writing and in accordance with the standards set forth in section 4231(e) of ERISA.
Section 4231.18 of the proposed rule would describe PBGC's jurisdiction over the merged plan resulting from a financial assistance merger. PBGC has determined that maintaining oversight is necessary to ensure compliance with financial assistance agreements, and proper stewardship of PBGC financial assistance. This is also consistent with one of the RFI comments. Based on the foregoing, § 4231.18(a) would provide that PBGC will continue to have jurisdiction over the merged plan resulting from a financial assistance merger to carry out the purposes, terms, and conditions of the financial assistance merger, sections 4231 and 4261 of ERISA, and the regulations thereunder. Section 4231.18(b) would state that PBGC may, upon notice to the plan sponsor, make changes to the financial assistance agreement(s) in response to changed circumstances consistent with sections 4231 and 4261 of ERISA and the regulations thereunder.
In addition to the specific requests for comments identified above, PBGC encourages all interested parties to submit their comments, suggestions, and views concerning the provisions of this proposed rule. In particular, PBGC is interested in any area in which additional guidance may be needed.
The amendments to part 4231 would be applicable to mergers and transfers for which a notice, and, if applicable,
Having determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis be performed for any economically significant regulatory action, defined as an action that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the national economy or which would have other substantial impacts.
Pursuant to section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13422), PBGC has determined that regulatory action is required in this area. Principally, this regulatory action is necessary to implement the requirements for a request for a facilitated merger under section 4231 of ERISA, as amended by MPRA.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, PBGC also has examined the economic and policy implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that the action's benefits justify its costs. Plan sponsors requesting a facilitated merger should have readily accessible the information needed for a request under this proposed rule. Most of the information requirements pertain to a request for facilitation of a merger with financial assistance. These requirements are largely the same as the information requirements in the interim final rule that PBGC published in the
Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, a regulatory action is economically significant if “it is likely to result in a rule that may * * * [h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.” OMB has determined that this proposed rule does not cross the $100 million threshold for economic significance and is not otherwise economically significant.
Based on a review of the requirements plans and PBGC must comply with for both partitions and financial assistance mergers, particularly the requirement that PBGC not impair its ability to help other troubled plans, PBGC expects that fewer than 20 plans would be approved for either partition or financial assistance merger over the next three years (about six plans per year), and that the total financial assistance PBGC would provide under both provisions would be less than $60 million per year.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the proposed rule describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to the proposed amendments to the Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting regulation, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This is substantially the same criterion PBGC uses in other regulations
Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in general most small plans are maintained by small employers. Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the proposed rule on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. PBGC therefore requests comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact on small entities of the proposed amendments to part 4231.
PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the amendments in this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 2014, multiemployer plans with fewer than 250 participants made up just 11% of the total 1,425 multiemployer plans. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
PBGC is submitting the information collection requirements under this
The collection of information in part 4231 is approved under control number 1212-0022 (expires July 31, 2017). PBGC estimates that there will be 28 respondents each year and that the total annual burden of the collection of information will be about 63.125 hours and $169,995. For purposes of estimating the total annual burden numbers for the collection of information in part 4231, PBGC assumed that it will receive a total of six requests for facilitation of a merger with financial assistance, with a per respondent annual burden of 10 hours and $26,250.
Comments on the information requirements under this proposed rule should be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at
• Whether the collection of information is needed for the proper performance of PBGC's functions and will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of PBGC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancement of the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing 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,
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR chapter XL by revising part 4231 to read as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3)
(a)
(2)
(b)
The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter:
(1) The date on which one plan assumes liability for benefits accrued under another plan involved in the transaction; or
(2) The date on which one plan transfers assets to another plan involved in the transaction.
(1) Transfers assets that equal or exceed 15 percent of its assets before the transfer,
(2) Receives a transfer of unfunded accrued benefits that equal or exceed 15 percent of its assets before the transfer,
(3) Is created by a spinoff from another plan,
(4) Engages in a merger or transfer (other than a de minimis merger or transfer) either—
(i) After such plan has terminated by mass withdrawal under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA, or
(ii) With another plan that has so terminated, or
(5) Is in either endangered status or critical status, and engages in a transfer (other than a de minimis transfer).
(a)
(1) No participant's or beneficiary's accrued benefit is lower immediately after the effective date of the merger or transfer than the benefit immediately before that date.
(2) Actuarial valuations of the plans that existed before the merger or transfer have been performed in accordance with § 4231.5.
(3) For each plan that exists after the transaction, an enrolled actuary—
(i) Determines that the plan meets the applicable plan solvency requirement set forth in § 4231.6; or
(ii) Otherwise demonstrates that benefits under the plan are not reasonably expected to be subject to suspension under section 4245 of ERISA.
(4) The plan sponsor notifies PBGC of the merger or transfer in accordance with §§ 4231.8 and 4231.9.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Section 4231(b)(2) of ERISA and § 4231.3(a)(1) require that no participant's or beneficiary's accrued benefit may be lower immediately after the effective date of the merger or transfer than the benefit immediately before the merger or transfer. A plan that assumes an obligation to pay benefits for a group of participants satisfies this requirement only if the plan contains a provision preserving all accrued benefits. The determination of what is an accrued benefit must be made in accordance with section 411 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.
The actuarial valuation requirement under section 4231(b)(4) of ERISA and § 4231.3(a)(2) is satisfied if an actuarial valuation has been performed for the plan based on the plan's assets and liabilities as of a date not earlier than the first day of the last plan year ending before the proposed effective date of the transaction. If the actuarial valuation required under this section is not complete when the notice of merger or transfer is filed, the plan sponsor may provide the most recent actuarial valuation for the plan with the notice, and the actuarial valuation required under this section when complete. For a significantly affected plan involved in a transfer, other than a plan that is a significantly affected plan only because the transfer involves a plan that has terminated by mass withdrawal under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA, the valuation must separately identify assets, contributions, and liabilities being transferred and must be based on the actuarial assumptions and methods that are expected to be used for the plan for the first plan year beginning after the transfer.
(a)
(1) In each of the first ten plan years beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the merger or transfer, the plan's expected fair market value of assets plus expected contributions and investment earnings equal or exceed expected expenses and benefit payments for the plan year; or
(2) The plan's expected fair market value of assets immediately after the merger or transfer equals or exceeds ten times the benefit payments for the last plan year ending before the proposed effective date of the merger or transfer.
(b)
(1) Expected contributions equal or exceed the estimated amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding requirement of section 431 of the Code for the ten plan years beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction.
(2) The plan's expected fair market value of assets immediately after the transaction equal or exceed the total amount of expected benefit payments for the first ten plan years beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction.
(3) Expected contributions for the first plan year beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction equal or exceed expected benefit payments for that plan year.
(4) Expected contributions for the amortization period equal or exceed unfunded accrued benefits plus expected normal costs. The actuary may select as the amortization period either—
(i) The first 15 plan years beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction, or
(ii) The amortization period for the resulting base when the combined charge base and the combined credit base are offset under section 431(b)(5) of the Code.
(c)
(1) Expected contributions after a merger or transfer must be determined by assuming that contributions for each plan year will equal contributions for the last full plan year ending before the date on which the notice of merger or transfer is filed with PBGC. If expected contributions include withdrawal liability payments, such payments must be shown separately. If the withdrawal liability payments are not the assessed amounts, or are not in accordance with the schedule of payments, or include future assessments, include the basis for such differences, with supporting data, calculations, assumptions, and methods. In addition, contributions must be adjusted to reflect—
(i) The merger or transfer;
(ii) Any change in the rate of employer contributions that has been negotiated (whether or not in effect); and
(iii) Any trend of changing contribution base units over the preceding five plan years or other period of time that can be demonstrated to be more appropriate.
(2) Expected normal costs must be determined under the funding method and assumptions expected to be used by the plan actuary for purposes of determining the minimum funding requirement under section 431 of the Code. If the plan uses an aggregate funding method, normal costs must be determined under the entry age normal method.
(3) Expected benefit payments must be determined by assuming that current benefits remain in effect and that all scheduled increases in benefits occur.
(4) The plan's expected fair market value of assets immediately after the merger or transfer must be based on the most recent data available immediately before the date on which the notice is filed.
(5) Expected investment earnings must be determined using the same interest assumption to be used for determining the minimum funding requirement under section 431 of the Code.
(6) Expected expenses must be determined using expenses in the last plan year ending before the notice is filed, adjusted to reflect any anticipated changes.
(7) Expected plan assets for a plan year must be determined by adjusting the most current data on the plan's fair market value of assets to reflect expected contributions, investment earnings, benefit payments and expenses for each plan year between the date of the most current data and the beginning of the plan year for which expected assets are being determined.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The fair market value of assets transferred, if any, is less than 3 percent of the fair market value of assets of all of the transferor plan's assets;
(2) The present value of the accrued benefits transferred (whether or not vested) is less than 3 percent of the fair market value of assets of all of the transferee plan's assets; and
(3) The transferee plan is not a plan that has terminated under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA.
(d)
(e)
(1) A merger is not de minimis if the total present value of accrued benefits merged into a plan, when aggregated with all prior de minimis mergers of and transfers to that plan effective within the same plan year, equals or exceeds 3 percent of the value of the plan's assets.
(2) A transfer is not de minimis if, when aggregated with all previous de minimis mergers and transfers effective within the same plan year—
(i) The value of all assets transferred from a plan equals or exceeds 3 percent of the value of the plan's assets; or
(ii) The present value of all accrued benefits transferred to a plan equals or exceeds 3 percent of the plan's assets.
(a)
(1) 270 days in the case of a facilitated merger under § 4231.12;
(2) 120 days in the case of a merger (other than a facilitated merger) for which a compliance determination under § 4231.10 is requested, or a transfer; or
(3) 45 days in the case of a merger for which a compliance determination under § 4231.10 is not requested.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) A plan sponsor demonstrates to the satisfaction of PBGC that failure to complete the merger or transfer in less than the applicable notice period set forth in paragraph (a) of this section will cause harm to participants or beneficiaries of the plans involved in the transaction;
(2) PBGC determines that the transaction complies with the requirements of section 4231 of ERISA; or
(3) PBGC completes its review of the transaction.
Each notice of proposed merger or transfer required under section 4231(b)(1) of ERISA and this subpart must contain the following information:
(a) For each plan involved in the merger or transfer—
(1) The name of the plan;
(2) The name, address and telephone number of the plan sponsor and of the plan sponsor's duly authorized representative, if any; and
(3) The plan sponsor's EIN and the plan's PN and, if different, the EIN or PN last filed with PBGC. If no EIN or PN has been assigned, the notice must so indicate.
(b) Whether the transaction being reported is a merger or transfer, whether it involves any plan that has terminated under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA, whether any significantly affected plan is involved in the transaction (and, if so, identifying each such plan), and whether it is a de minimis transaction as defined in § 4231.7 (and, if so, including an enrolled actuary's certification to that effect).
(c) The proposed effective date of the transaction.
(d) A copy of each plan provision stating that no participant's or beneficiary's accrued benefit will be lower immediately after the effective date of the merger or transfer than the benefit immediately before that date.
(e) For each plan that exists after the transaction, one of the following statements, certified by an enrolled actuary:
(1) A statement that the plan satisfies the applicable plan solvency test set forth in § 4231.6, indicating which is the applicable test, and including the supporting data, calculations, assumptions, and methods.
(2) A statement of the basis on which the actuary has determined under § 4231.3(a)(3)(ii) that benefits under the plan are not reasonably expected to be subject to suspension under section 4245 of ERISA, including the supporting data, calculations, assumptions, and methods.
(f) For each plan that exists before a transaction (unless the transaction is de minimis and does not involve a request for financial assistance, or any plan that has terminated under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA), a copy of the most recent actuarial valuation report that satisfies the requirements of § 4231.5.
(g) For each significantly affected plan that exists after the transaction, the following information used in making the plan solvency determination under § 4231.6(b):
(1) The present value of the accrued benefits and plan's fair market value of assets under the valuation required by § 4231.5, allocable to the plan after the transaction.
(2) The fair market value of assets in the plan after the transaction (determined in accordance with § 4231.6(c)(4)).
(3) The expected benefit payments for the plan in the first plan year beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction (determined in accordance with § 4231.6(c)(3)).
(4) The contribution rates in effect for the plan for the first plan year beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction.
(5) The expected contributions for the plan in the first plan year beginning on or after the proposed effective date of the transaction (determined in accordance with § 4231.6(c)(1)).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) A copy of the merger or transfer agreement; and
(2) For each significantly affected plan, other than a plan that is a significantly affected plan only because the merger or transfer involves a plan that has terminated by mass withdrawal under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA, copies of all actuarial valuations performed within the 5 years preceding the date of filing the notice required under § 4231.3(a)(4).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2) If a financial assistance merger is requested, the request must contain the information required in §§ 4231.13 through 4231.16 in addition to the information required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3)
(c)
A request for a financial assistance merger must include the following information for each plan involved in the merger:
(a) The most recent trust agreement, including all amendments adopted since the last restatement.
(b) The most recent plan document, including all amendments adopted since the last restatement.
(c) The most recent summary plan description (SPD), and all summaries of material modification issued since the most recent SPD.
(d) If applicable, the most recent rehabilitation plan (or funding improvement plan), including all subsequent amendments and updates, and the percentage of total contributions received under each schedule of the rehabilitation plan (or funding improvement plan) for the most recent plan year available.
(e) A copy of the plan's most recent IRS determination letter.
(f) A copy of the plan's most recent Form 5500 (Annual Report Form) and all schedules and attachments (including the audited financial statement).
(g) A current listing of employers who have an obligation to contribute to the plan, and the approximate number of participants for whom each employer is currently making contributions.
(h) A schedule of withdrawal liability payments collected in each of the most recent five plan years.
(i) If applicable, a copy of the plan sponsor's application for suspension of benefits under section 305(e)(9)(G) of ERISA (including all attachments and exhibits).
A request for a financial assistance merger must include the following information about the proposed financial assistance merger:
(a) A detailed description of the proposed financial assistance merger, including any larger integrated transaction of which the merger is a part (including, but not limited to, an application for suspension of benefits under section 305(e)(9)(G) of ERISA).
(b) A narrative description of the events that led to the plan sponsors' decision to submit a request for a financial assistance merger.
(c) A narrative description of significant risks and assumptions relating to the proposed financial assistance merger and the projections provided in support of the request.
(d) A detailed description of the estimated total amount of financial assistance the plan sponsors request for each year, including the supporting data, calculations, assumptions, and a description of the methodology used to determine the estimated amounts.
A request for a financial assistance merger must include the following actuarial and financial information for the plans involved in the merger:
(a) A copy of the actuarial valuation performed for each of the two plan years before the most recent actuarial valuation filed in accordance with § 4231.5.
(b) If applicable, a copy of the plan actuary's most recent annual actuarial certification under section 305(b)(3) of ERISA, including a detailed description of the assumptions used in the certification, and the basis under which they were determined. The description must include information about the assumptions used for the projection of future contributions, withdrawal liability payments, and investment returns, and any other assumption that may have a material effect on projections.
(c) A detailed statement certified by an enrolled actuary that the merger is necessary for one or more of the plans involved to avoid or postpone insolvency, including the basis for the conclusion, supporting data, calculations, assumptions, and a description of the methodology. This
(1) Fair market value of assets as of the beginning of the year.
(2) Contributions and withdrawal liability payments.
(3) Benefit payments organized by participant type (
(4) Administrative expenses.
(5) Fair market value of assets as of the end of the year.
(d) For each critical and declining status plan involved in the merger, a long-term projection (at least 50 to 90 years) of benefit disbursements by participant type (
(e) For each critical and declining status plan involved in the merger, a long-term projection (at least 50 to 90 years) of benefit disbursements by participant type (
(f) A detailed statement certified by an enrolled actuary that financial assistance is necessary for the merged plan to become or remain solvent, including the basis for the conclusion, supporting data, calculations, assumptions, and a description of the methodology. Include as an exhibit annual cash flow projections for the merged plan with the proposed financial assistance (based on the actuarial assumptions and methods that will be used under the merged plan). Annual cash flow projections must reflect the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. In addition, include as an exhibit a statement of whether the merged plan would be in critical status for purposes of paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section, including the basis for the conclusion.
(1) If the merged plan would be in critical status immediately following the merger without the proposed financial assistance (as reasonably determined by the enrolled actuary), the enrolled actuary's certified statement must demonstrate that the merged plan will avoid insolvency under section 305(e)(9)(D)(iv) of ERISA and the regulations thereunder (excluding stochastic projections) with the proposed financial assistance.
(2) If the merged plan would not be in critical status immediately following the merger without the proposed financial assistance (as reasonably determined by the enrolled actuary), the enrolled actuary's certified statement must demonstrate that the merged plan is not projected to become insolvent during the 20 plan years beginning after the proposed effective date of the merger with the proposed financial assistance (using the methodologies set forth under section 305(b)(3)(B)(iv) of ERISA and the regulations thereunder). If such a demonstration is possible without the proposed financial assistance, or if the amount of financial assistance requested exceeds the amount needed to satisfy this demonstration, the enrolled actuary's certified statement must demonstrate that financial assistance is necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of the merger on the merged plan's ability to remain solvent.
(g) If applicable, a copy of the plan actuary's certification under section 305(e)(9)(C)(i) of ERISA.
(h) The rules in § 4231.6(c) apply to the solvency projections described in § 4231.15(c) and (f), unless section 305(e)(9)(D)(iv) of ERISA and the regulations thereunder apply and specify otherwise.
A request for a financial assistance merger must include a copy of the census data used for the projections described in § 4231.15(c) and (f), including:
(a) Participant type (retiree, beneficiary, disabled, terminated vested, active, alternate payee).
(b) Gender.
(c) Date of birth.
(d) Credited service for guarantee calculation (
(e) Vested accrued monthly benefit.
(f) Monthly benefit guaranteed by PBGC.
(g) Monthly benefit reduced by the maximum benefit suspension permissible under section 305(e)(9) of ERISA.
(h) Benefit commencement date (for participants in pay status and others for which the reported benefit will not be payable at normal retirement age).
(i) For each participant in pay status—
(1) Form of payment, and
(2) Data relevant to the form of payment, including:
(i) For a joint-and-survivor benefit, the beneficiary's benefit amount and the beneficiary's date of birth;
(ii) For a Social Security level income benefit, the date of any change in the benefit amount, and the benefit amount after such change;
(iii) For a 5-year certain or 10-year certain benefit (or similar benefit), the relevant defined period; or
(iv) For a form of payment not otherwise described in this section, the data necessary for the valuation of the form of payment.
(j) If an actuarial increase for postponed retirement applies, or if the form of annuity is a Social Security level income option, the monthly vested benefit payable at normal retirement age in normal form of annuity.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Portland Harbor and Casco Bay to be enforced during the Casco Bay Islands Swim/Run marine event. The event involves athletes tethered together by a line in which they will run and swim on and between eight islands of the Casco Bay archipelago. This safety zone will facilitate the protection of the event participants, their support vessels, and the maritime public from the hazards associated with the event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within this safety zone during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 6, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0329 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rulemaking, call or email MSTC Bains, Sector Northern New England Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 207-347-5003, email
On December 15, 2015, the Coast Guard was notified of a swimming and running event that will occur within the Casco Bay Islands archipelago from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on August 14, 2016. The name of the marine event is called the Casco Bay Islands Swim/Run. Participants will begin the event with a run on Great Chebeague Island to Little Chebeague Island. From Little Chebeague Island they will start the swim/run process with a 470 yard swim to Long Island. After a short run, the athletes will swim an additional 900 yards on the east side of the island to a point back on Long Island. Next, the participants will swim 1,300 yards to Cow Island and then an additional 540 yards to Great Diamond Island. From Great Diamond Island, the participants will swim 700 yards to Peaks Island, then an additional 500 yards to another point on the southern end of Peaks Island. The participants will then swim 700 yards to House Island. From House Island the participants will swim 800 yards to the Little Diamond Island Landing. The final swim leg is a 650 yard swim from the Little Diamond Island Landing back to Peaks Island. Hazards associated with this marine event include accidental collisions with the event participants and the maritime public. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the marine event will be a safety concern for event participants, the support vessels, and the maritime public.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of event participants, the support vessels, the maritime public, and the navigable waters within a 200-feet radius of the event participants, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone from 6:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 14, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within the geographic locations specified in the regulatory text on the navigable waters of Casco Bay, Portland, Maine. Vessels not associated with the event shall maintain a distance of at least 200 feet from the participants. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of event participants, support vessels, the maritime public, and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. event. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. This regulation may have an impact on the general public, but that potential impact will likely be minimal for several reasons. First, this safety zone will be in effect for only five and a half hours in the morning when vessel traffic is expected to be light. In addition, vessels may enter or pass through the safety zone during an enforcement period with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Lastly, the Coast Guard will provide notification to the public through Broadcast Notice to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For all of the reasons discussed in the REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW section, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed 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 Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting five and half hours that would prohibit entry within 200 feet of the participants and vessels in support of the event. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 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)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's representatives. However, any vessel that is granted permission by the COTP or the COTP's representatives must proceed through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules.
(2) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's representatives. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the safety zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP's representatives.
(3) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via VHF channel 16 or 207-767-0302 (Sector Northern New England Command Center).
(c)
(d)
(e)
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to delete the use of “telegram”, “telegraph”, and related terms. The objective is to delete reference to obsolete technologies no longer in use and replace with references to electronic communications. In addition, conforming changes are proposed covering expedited notice of termination and change orders.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before August 5, 2016 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2015-035 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at 202-969-7207, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2015-035.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to delete the use of the terms “telegram”, “telegraph”, “telegraphic”, and related terminology.
The word “telegram” emerged shortly after the invention of the electrical telegraph in the 1840s. This terminology and way of communicating was incorporated into the first issue of the FAR, effective April 1, 1984. The emergence of electronic means of communication, starting with the facsimile machine, and then followed by email and mobile-phone text
This case is consistent with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Memorandum dated December 4, 2014 on transforming the marketplace, which describes ongoing actions to support the needs of a 21st century Government.
(1) This rulemaking proposes to delete all references to “telegraph” and “telegram” and replace these terms with an option for electronic communication.
(2) At FAR 49.601-1, a revised policy statement is added to allow the use of electronic means to notify the contractor of a termination for convenience. The objective is to provide an expeditious way to notify the contractor of the termination. This change is necessary because the abbreviated version of the notice of termination for the convenience of the Government is currently linked with the telegraphic notice procedure.
(3) At FAR 49.102, a conforming change is added to allow the use of electronic means to notify the contractor of a termination whether the termination is for convenience or default.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The reason for this action is to delete the use of “telegram”, “telegraph”, and related terms. The Councils are proposing to replace these terms with an option for electronic communications. The objective is to delete reference to obsolete technologies no longer in use within the context of the FAR requirements. The proposed rule would apply to all entities, both small and other than small, performing as contractors or subcontractors on U.S. Government contracts. In 2014 there were about 350,000 active registrants in the System for Award Management (SAM). DoD, GSA, and NASA estimate approximately half of the registrants in SAM (175,000) are small entities that will receive a contract or subcontract in a given year. In 2014 small entities received 1,398,605 or about 9 percent of all actions in that year per the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). However, the small entities will not be materially affected by this rule, as the only change provided in this rule is recognition of current options for transmitting documents between the Government and contractors. It does not change the policy requiring the Government to notify contractors of a contract termination. The Government is still responsible to obtain evidence of receipt of termination from the contractor.
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There were no significant alternatives identified that would meet the objective of the rule.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015-035), in correspondence.
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 5, 14, 19, 22, 25, 28, 43, 47, 49, 52, and 53 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(b) Before amending an invitation for bids, the contracting officer shall consider the period of time remaining until bid opening and the need to extend this period.
Bids shall be submitted so that they will be received in the office designated in the invitation for bids not later than the exact time set for opening of bids.
(a)(1) Bids may be modified or withdrawn by any method authorized by the solicitation, if notice is received in the office designated in the solicitation not later than the exact time set for opening of bids. If the solicitation authorizes facsimile bids, bids may be modified or withdrawn via facsimile received at any time before the exact time set for receipt of bids, subject to the conditions specified in the provision prescribed in 14.201-6(v). Modifications
(i) The date and time of receipt and by whom; and
(ii) The number of the invitation for bids, and shall sign the envelope.
(2) No information contained in the envelope shall be disclosed before the time set for bid opening.
(c) The contracting officer may issue a change order by electronic means without a SF 30 under unusual or urgent circumstances,
(c) If necessary to meet required delivery schedules, the contracting officer may issue instructions by telephone or electronic means. The contracting officer shall confirm telephonic instructions in writing, and confirm electronic instructions if the contracting officer did not receive confirmation of receipt.
(a)
The revision and addition reads as follows:
The contracting officer may provide expedited notice of termination, by electronic means, that includes a requirement for the contractor to confirm receipt. If the contractor does not confirm receipt promptly, the contracting officer shall resend the notice electronically, and expedite the letter notice described in 49.601-2. If confirmation of the electronic notice is received, and the electronic notice includes all content in 49.601-2, the contracting officer, at her or his discretion, need not send the letter notice described in 49.601-2.
The revisions read as follows:
* * * This notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or electronically, provided evidence of receipt is received by the contracting officer. If no prior electronic notice was issued, or if no confirmation of an electronic notice was received, use the alternate notice that follows this notice.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)(1) Bidders shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation:
(i) By signing and returning the amendment;
(ii) By identifying the amendment number and date in space provided for this purpose on the form for submitting a bid;
(iii) By letter;
(iv) By facsimile, if facsimile bids are authorized in the solicitation; or
(v) By email, if email bids are authorized in the solicitation.
(2) The Government must receive the acknowledgment by the time and at the place specified for receipt of bids.
The revision reads as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This rule proposes regulations to approve and implement measures in Framework Adjustment 3 and 2016-2017 Specifications (Framework 3) to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Framework 3 would implement skate fishery specifications and a new seasonal quota allocation for the skate wing fishery. The action is necessary to update the Skate FMP to be consistent with the most recent scientific information, and improve management of the skate fisheries. The proposed action is expected to help conserve skate stocks, while maintaining economic opportunities for the skate fisheries.
Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2016.
Copies of the framework, including the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) and other supporting documents for the action are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The framework is also accessible via the Internet at:
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0054, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273.
The New England Fishery Management Council is responsible for developing management measures for skate fisheries in the northeastern U.S. through the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (Skate FMP). Seven skate species are managed under the Skate FMP: Winter; little; thorny; barndoor; smooth; clearnose; and rosette. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee reviews the best available information on the status of skate populations and makes recommendations on acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the skate complex (all seven species). This recommendation is then used as the basis for catch limits and other management measures for the skate fisheries.
The regulations implementing the Skate FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart O, outline the management procedures and measures for the skate fisheries. Specifications including the annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), total allowable landings (TALs) for the skate wing and bait fisheries, and possession limits may be specified for up to 2 years. The current specifications were implemented as part of Framework Adjustment 2 to the Skate FMP (79 FR 51504, August 29, 2014). The Council is required to develop new specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years. The existing specifications and possession limits remain in effect until they are replaced. In addition to setting specifications, the Council desired to modify the in-season management of the skate wing fishery, including a new seasonal allocation of the quota in a framework adjustment.
In September 2015, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee reviewed updated information on the status of the seven species in the skate complex, including new research on discard mortality rates, and recommended an ABC of 31,081 mt for 2016 and 2017 (a 12-percent reduction from 2015). The recommended catch reduction is based on trawl survey biomass declines in little and clearnose skates, as well as adjustments to historical catch estimates derived from the new discard mortality rate data (lower than previously assumed). According to the most recent stock status information, no skates are experiencing overfishing, and only thorny skate is in an overfished condition. Thorny skate continues to be a prohibited species as part of its long-term stock rebuilding plan. More details are provided in the EA (see
The Council's Skate Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel (AP) met in October 2015 to develop specification recommendations for Council consideration, following the procedures in Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP (75 FR 34049, June 16, 2010). Following these procedures, the recommended ABC reduction, in addition to increases in the skate discard rate in recent years, resulted in a 23-percent decline in the total allowable landings (TAL) from 2015 levels. Due to the 23-percent reduction in the TAL, the Committee and AP discussed tradeoffs between reducing possession limits versus seasonally allocating the TAL in an effort to avoid in-season closures and maintain a steady supply of skate wings across the year.
The Council ultimately decided to recommend status quo possession limits (see
In Season 2, the Regional Administrator may reduce the possession limit to 500 lb (227 kg) when 85 percent of the annual skate wing TAL is projected to be landed, consistent with the existing authority provided in the regulations implemented in Framework Adjustment 1 to the Skate FMP (76 FR 28328, May 17, 2011). These in-season possession limit reductions are designed to mitigate the potential for prolonged closures for the directed skate fishery, while still allowing some incidental catches to be landed.
The Council has recommended, and NMFS is proposing in this rule, the following specifications for the skate fisheries for the 2016-2017 fishing years:
1. Skate Complex ABC and ACL of 31,081 mt;
2. Skate Complex ACT of 23,311 mt;
3. A TAL of 8,372 mt for the skate wing fishery, with 4,772 mt (57 percent) allocated to Season 1 (May 1-August 31), and the remainder of the TAL (at least 43 percent) allocated to Season 2 (September 1-April 30);
4. Status quo skate wing possession limits, as defined in § 648.322(b): 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) wing weight per trip for Season 1 (May 1 through August 31), and 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) wing weight per trip for Season 2 (September 1 through April 30) for vessels fishing on a Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, or Scallop day-at-sea. The Northeast Multispecies Category-B day-at-sea possession limit remains at 220 lb (100 kg) wing weight per trip, and the non-day-at-sea incidental possession limit remains at 500 lb (227 kg) wing weight per trip;
5. A TAL of 4,218 mt for the skate bait fishery, divided into three seasons according to the current regulations at § 648.322; and
6. Status quo skate bait possession limit, as defined in § 648.322(c): 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) whole weight per trip for vessels carrying a valid Skate Bait Letter of Authorization.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Skate FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of Framework 3, the EA for Framework 3, and this preamble to the proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see
A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the Background section of the preamble and in the
This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
This proposed rule would impact fishing vessels, including commercial fishing entities. In 2014, there were 2,012 vessels that held an open access skate permit. However, only 431 of those permit holders were active participants in the commercial skate fishery (
This proposed rule includes management measure alternatives for (1) the skate complex ACL and associated ACT and TALs, (2) possession limits in the skate wing and bait fisheries, and (3) seasonal allocation alternatives in the skate wing fishery.
With respect to the latter two management measures, the proposed action includes the alternatives that are expected to minimize any potential economic impacts compared to the other alternatives. This action proposes to maintain the current skate bait and skate wing trip limits. It would also apportion a percentage of the wing TAL to each season and establish an in-season trigger for season one. Therefore, the remainder of this summary will focus on the first management measure alternatives (
The proposed ACL alternative described in the preamble of this proposed rule represents a reduction in the allowable catch and landings as compared to the no action alternative. Therefore, as compared to the proposed action, the no action alternative would result in less short-term economic impacts. During 2014, total revenues from skate landings were valued at approximately $8.9 million. Compared to the no action alternative, the proposed reduction in the skate TALs (23 percent) could reduce potential annual skate revenues. However, actual skate landings in recent years have been close to the proposed TAL, suggesting that it is unlikely that potential revenue losses would be directly commensurate with the TAL reduction. If skate landings in 2016 and 2017 are comparable to those observed in 2014 and 2015, then most skate vessels may experience little loss of skate revenue, and the fishery may actually come closer to fully harvesting the available amount of landings. According to the
The no action alternative is not expected to result in any additional short-term reductions in landings revenue. Given the recent performance of the skate fisheries, the no action alternative could minimize economic impacts and still achieve the stated objectives of this action. However, the no action alternative does not include all of the most recent information on skate stock status and discard mortality rates, and could result in a higher risk of overfishing the skate complex resulting in long-term economic impacts.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) A total of 66.5 percent of the annual skate complex TAL shall be allocated to the skate wing fishery. All skate products that are landed in wing form, for the skate wing market, or classified by Federal dealers as food as required under § 648.7(a)(1)(i), shall count against the skate wing fishery TAL. The annual skate wing fishery TAL shall be allocated in two seasonal quota periods as follows:
(i) Season 1—May 1 through August 31, 57 percent of the annual skate wing fishery TAL shall be allocated;
(ii) Season 2—September 1 through April 30, the remainder of the annual skate wing fishery TAL not landed in Season 1 shall be allocated.
(b) * * *
(2)
(i) When 85 percent of the Season 1 skate wing quota is projected to be landed between May 1 and August 17, the Regional Administrator shall reduce the skate wing possession limit to the incidental level described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) When 85 percent of the Season 1 skate wing quota is projected to be landed between August 18 and August 31, the Regional Administrator may reduce the skate wing possession limit to the incidental level described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(iii) In Season 2, when 85 percent of the annual skate wing fishery TAL is projected to be landed, the Regional Administrator shall reduce the skate wing possession limit to the incidental level described in this paragraph, unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent attainment of the annual TAL.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Committee information can be found at the following Web site at
The teleconference will be held on July 20, 2016, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Follow up on action items from May 2016 meeting, and
2. Deliver presentation on area of interest.
The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Lori McKean, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250; or by email to
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service announces competitive grant funds for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, formerly known as the Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grant program, as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113). The purpose of this program is to provide technical assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups in rural areas. Eligible applicants include Cooperatives, Groups of Cooperatives, and Cooperative Development Centers. The Agency is encouraging applications that direct grants to projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. This emphasis will support Rural Development's (RD) mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
Completed applications for grants must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:
Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than August 5, 2016. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date.
Electronic copies must be received by
You should contact the USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) located in the State where you are headquartered if you have questions. Contact information for State Offices can be found at:
If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the SDGG funding announcement located at
Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., MS 3253, Room 4208-South, Washington, DC 20250-3250, or call 202-690-1374.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0052.
The SDGG Program is authorized by section 310B (e)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 (e)(11)). The primary objective of the SDGG program is to provide Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Grants are available for Cooperative Development Centers, individual Cooperatives, or Groups of Cooperatives that serve Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and where a majority of their board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.
(1) Not in a city or town that has a population of more than 50,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial census of the United States; and
(2) The contiguous and adjacent urbanized area,
(3) Urbanized areas that are rural in character as defined by 7 U.S.C. 1991 (a) (13).
(4) For the purposes of this definition, cities and towns are incorporated population centers with definite boundaries, local self-government, and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the State. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, within the areas of the County of Honolulu, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Secretary may designate any part of the areas as a rural area if the Secretary determines that the part is not urban in character, other than any area included in the Honolulu census designated place (CDP) or the San Juan CDP.
Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
1.
(a) An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt.
(b) Any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
2.
3.
However, you may not have more than one active SDGG during the same grant period. If you receive another SDGG during the next grant cycle, the first grant must be closed before funds can be obligated for the new grant. Applications that request funds for a time period ending after December 31, 2017, will not be considered for funding.
The application template for applying on paper for this funding opportunity is located at
You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through
To submit an application electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at
You can locate the
When you enter the
To use
You must submit all of your application documents electronically through
After electronically submitting an application through
If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
Your application must also contain the following required forms and proposal elements:
(a) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to include your DUNS number and SAM Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date. Because there are no specific fields for a CAGE code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on the form. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.
(b) Form SF-424A, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.
(c) Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.
(d) Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.
(e) You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.
(f) Table of Contents. Your application must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC). The TOC must include page numbers for each part of the application. Page numbers should begin immediately following the TOC.
(g) Executive Summary. A summary of the proposal, not to exceed one page, must briefly describe the Project, tasks to be completed, and other relevant information that provides a general overview of the Project.
(h) Eligibility Discussion. A detailed discussion, not to exceed four pages, must describe how you meet the following requirements:
(1) Applicant Eligibility. You must describe how you meet the definition of a Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives, or Cooperative Development Center. Your application must show that your individual Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives or Cooperative Development Center serves Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Your application must include a list of your board of directors/governing board and the percentage of board of directors/governing board that are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. NOTE: Your application will not be considered for funding if you fail to show that a majority of your board of directors/governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.
If applying as a Cooperative or a Group of Cooperatives, you must verify your incorporation and status in the State that you have applied by providing the State's Certificate of Good Standing and your Articles of Incorporation. If applying as a nonprofit corporation, you must provide evidence of your status as a nonprofit corporation in good standing and your Articles of Incorporation. If applying as an institution of higher education, you must qualify as an Institution of Higher Education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001. You must apply as only one type of applicant. If the requested verification documents are not included, your application will not be considered for funding.
(2) Use of Funds. You must provide a detailed discussion on how the proposed Project activities meet the definition of Technical Assistance and identify the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups that will be assisted.
(3) Project Area. You must provide specific information that details the location of the Project area and explain how the area meets the definition of “Rural Area.”
(4) Grant Period. You must provide a time frame for the proposed Project and discuss how the Project will be completed within that time frame. You must have a time frame of one year or less.
(5) Satisfactory Performance. If you have an existing SDGG and/or RCDG award, you must discuss the current status of the award(s).
(6) Indirect Costs. Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.
(i) Scoring Criteria. Each of the scoring criteria in this Notice must be addressed in narrative form, with a maximum of two pages for each individual scoring criterion, unless otherwise specified. Failure to address each scoring criteria will result in the application being determined ineligible.
(j) The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the SDGG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures as part of your narrative:
• Number of cooperatives assisted; and
• Number of socially disadvantaged groups assisted.
In order to be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:
(a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;
(b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
The Agency may not make a Federal award to you until you have complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements. If you have not fully complied with requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use this determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.
Electronic applications must be RECEIVED by
Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, is listed as applying to this program, however since this program is comprised of the provision of technical assistance which is of a non-construction nature the intergovernmental review process is not required.
You are also encouraged to contact Cooperative Programs at 202-690-1374 or
Grant funds must be used for Technical Assistance. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to:
(a) Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;
(b) Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including processing equipment;
(c) Purchase vehicles, including boats;
(d) Pay for the preparation of the grant application;
(e) Pay expenses not directly related to the funded Project;
(f) Fund political or lobbying activities;
(g) To fund any activities considered unallowable by the applicable grant cost principles, including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
(h) Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility;
(i) Fund any direct expenses for the production of any commodity or product to which value will be added, including seed, rootstock, labor for harvesting the crop, and delivery of the commodity to a processing facility;
(j) Fund research and development;
(k) Purchase land;
(l) Duplicate current activities or activities paid for by other Federal grant programs;
(m) Pay costs of the Project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;
(n) Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise that does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;
(o) Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;
(p) Pay any Operating Costs of the Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives, or Cooperative Development Center not directly related to the Project;
(q) Pay expenses for applicant employee training; or
(r) Pay for any goods or services from a person who has a Conflict of Interest with the grantee.
(s) Pay for Technical Assistance provided to a Cooperative that does not have a membership that consists of a majority of members from Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.
In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
• Requests more than the maximum grant amount;
• Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total grant funds requested; or
• Proposes Participant Support Costs that equal more than 10 percent of total grant funds requested.
We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total grant funds requested, as long as it is determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.
(a) You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in hard copy or electronically. Applications submitted in hard copy should be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
(b) National Environmental Policy Act. This Notice has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970 “Environmental Policies and Procedures”. We have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required because the issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for processing, approving, and implementing the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation found at 7 CFR 1970.53(f). We have determined that this Notice does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Individual awards under this Notice are hereby classified as Categorical Exclusions according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), the award of financial assistance for planning purposes, management and feasibility studies, or environmental impact analyses, which do not require any additional documentation.
(c) Civil Rights Compliance Requirements. All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Act of 1975, and Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency. As such, the Agency will conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews on recipients to identify the collection of racial and ethnic data on
All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Failure to address any one of the following criteria by the application deadline will result in the application being determined ineligible and the application will not be considered for funding. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual scoring criterion. The total points possible for the criteria are 60.
(a)
Higher points are awarded if you identify specific needs of the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups to be assisted; clearly explain a logical and detailed plan of assistance for addressing those needs; and discuss realistic outcomes of planned assistance.
(b)
Higher points will be awarded if a majority of identified staff or consultants demonstrate 5 or more years of experience in providing relevant Technical Assistance in accordance with the work plan. Maximum points will be awarded if all of the identified staff or consultants demonstrate 5 or more years of experience in providing relevant Technical Assistance.
(c)
(d)
A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. Clear, logical, realistic, and efficient plans will result in a higher score. You must discuss at a minimum:
(i) Specific tasks to be completed using grant funds;
(ii) How customers will be identified;
(iii) Key personnel; and
(iv) The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall project objectives. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations.
(e)
(i) 0 points are awarded if you do not adequately address this criterion.
(ii) 1 point is awarded if you provide 2-3 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(iii) 2 points are awarded if you provide 4 -5 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(iv) 3 points are awarded if you provide 6-7 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(v) 4 points are awarded if you provide 8-9 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(vi) 5 points are awarded if you provide 10 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
You may submit a maximum of 10 letters of support. Support letters should come from potential beneficiaries and other local organizations. Letters received from Congressional members and Technical Assistance providers will not be included in the count of support letters received. Additionally, identical form letters signed by multiple potential beneficiaries and/or local organizations will not be included in the count of support letters received. Support letters should be included as an attachment to the application and will not count against the maximum page total. Additional letters from industry groups, commodity groups, Congressional members, and similar organizations should be referenced, but not included in the application package. When referencing these letters, provide the name of the organization, date of the letter, the nature of the support, and the name and title of the person signing the letter.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. The panel will consist of USDA employees with expertise in providing Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. The review panel will convene to reach a consensus on the scores for each of the eligible applications. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's
If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available FY 2016 funding.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 2 CFR parts 200, 215, 400, 415, 417, 418, and 421. All recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (See 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act reporting requirements (See 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). These regulations may be obtained at
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
• Agency approved Grant Agreement.
• Letter of Conditions.
• Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
• Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”
• Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.
• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:
a. A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include the following: A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
For general questions about this announcement and for program Technical Assistance, please contact the appropriate State Office as indicated in the
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice; correction.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published in the
Effective on June 6, 2016.
Titilayo Ogunyale, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1510, Room 5136-S, Washington, DC 20250-1510; Telephone: (202) 720-0736; Email:
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published in the
In the Notice of Comment Solicitation FR Doc. 2016-12192 published May 24, 2016, at 81 FR 32719, make the following correction. Remove “7 CFR 1710.10” and add in its place “7 CFR 1710.101” on the following page:
Page 32719, third column, “Entities eligible to borrow from RUS and relend to consumers pursuant to RESP are not restricted to electric utilities per se; entities owned or controlled by current or former RUS borrowers and those entities described in 7 CFR 1710.101 may also participate in the RESP program.”
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682.
On August 13, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
This correction to the initiation of the antidumping duty changed circumstances review is issued and published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 11, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China covering the period November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012 (third administrative review).
Effective Date: May 21, 2016.
Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement
On June 24, 2014, the Department published the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rate the Department determined and listed above.
The current cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 82.05 percent, and thus same as the cash deposit rate established in the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 25, 2016, the Department received a timely request for a new shipper review (NSR) from Shandong Xinghongyuan Tire Co., Ltd. (SXT), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c). The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that the request for a NSR of the countervailing duty order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2014, through January 31, 2016.
Mark Hoadley, 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) 482-3148.
The Department published the countervailing duty order on passenger tires from the PRC in the
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), SXT submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States; (2) the date on which the passenger tires were first entered for consumption; (3) the volume of that shipment.
The Department queried the database of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in an attempt to confirm that the shipment reported by SXT had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation had been suspended as subject to the countervailing duty order. The information which the Department examined was consistent with that provided by SXT in its request.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request a NSR within one year of the date on which its subject merchandise was first entered. Moreover, 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1) states that if the request for the review is made during the six-month period ending with the end of the semiannual anniversary month, the Department will initiate a NSR in the calendar month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month. Further, 19 CFR 351.214(g)(2) and 19 CFR 351.213(e)(2)(ii) state that the first review period after an order normally will cover entries or exports from the date of suspension of liquidation to the end of the most recently completed calendar year. However, since SXT's shipment entered the United States after the end of 2015, and because SXT has requested a concurrent NSR of the antidumping duty order covering the same shipment, we are expanding the POR by one month.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and the information on the record, the Department finds that SXT's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR and, therefore, is initiating a NSR of SXT. If the information supplied by STX is found to be incorrect or insufficient during the course of this proceeding, the Department may rescind the review for STX or apply facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, depending on the facts on the record. Absent a determination that the new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, the Department intends to issue the preliminary results within 180 days after the date on which this review is initiated and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results.
On February 24, 2016, the President signed into law the “Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015,” H.R. 644, which made several amendments to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. We will conduct this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this proceeding should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective June 6, 2016.
Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 or Trisha Tran at (202) 482-4852; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On February 10, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty investigation on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (off road tires) from India.
On May 3, 2016, Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW) (collectively, Petitioners) made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for postponement of the preliminary determination, in order to provide the Department with sufficient time to develop the record in this proceeding through additional questionnaires, which Petitioners will in turn need to analyze and possibly comment on. Because there are no compelling reasons to deny Petitioners' request, in accordance with section 773(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days.
For the reasons stated above, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated this investigation. Therefore, the new deadline for the preliminary determination is August 11, 2016. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 10, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) sustained the
Effective May 20, 2016.
Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0410 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
On July 8, 2015, the Court remanded the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if it is appealed and upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., NSK Ltd., NSK Bearings Europe Ltd., and NTN Corporation and NTN Kongo Corporation, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the total amount of dumping for the reviewed sales by the total entered vale of those reviewed sales for each importer.
For entries of subject merchandise during the period of reviews produced by Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., NSK Ltd., NSK Bearings Europe Ltd., and NTN Corporation and NTN Kongo Corporation, for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the country-specific all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
For all other companies listed above, which were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above to all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by such firms.
Because we revoked the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject merchandise will be required.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 25, 2016, the Department received a timely request for a new shipper review (NSR) from Shandong Xinghongyuan Tire Co., Ltd. (“SXT”), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c). The Department of Commerce (Department) has determined that the request for a NSR of the antidumping duty order on Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2015, through, January 31, 2016.
Effective June 6, 2016.
Chien-Min Yang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
The Department published the antidumping duty order on passenger tires from the PRC in the
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), SXT submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States; (2) the date on which the passenger tires were first entered; and (3) the volume of that shipment.
The Department queried the database of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in an attempt to confirm that the shipment reported by SXT had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The information which the Department examined was consistent with that provided by SXT in its request.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request a NSR within one year of the date on which its subject merchandise was first entered. Moreover, 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1) states that if the request for the review is made during the six-month period ending with the end of the semiannual anniversary month, the Secretary will initiate a NSR in the calendar month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month. Further, 19 CFR 315.214(g)(1)(i)(B) states that if the NSR was initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month, the POR will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. SXT made the request for a NSR, that included all documents and information required by the statute and regulations, within one year of the date on which its passenger tires first entered. Its request was filed in February, which is the semiannual anniversary month of the order. Therefore, the POR is August 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and the information on the record, the Department finds that SXT's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR and, therefore, is initiating a NSR of SXT. The Department intends to issue the preliminary results within 180 days after the date on which this review is initiated and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results.
It is the Department's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate (
On February 24, 2016, the President signed into law the “Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015,” H.R. 644, which made several amendments to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. We will conduct this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this proceeding should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) will hold its inaugural meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2016. The Council was chartered on April 6, 2016, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to foreign direct investment into the United States. At the meeting, members will be sworn-in and will begin a discussion of the work they will undertake during their term. They are expected to discuss
Tuesday, June 21, 2016, 9 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT.
The United States Investment Advisory Council meeting will be broadcast via live webcast on the Internet at
Li Zhou, the United States Investment Advisory Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email:
Submit statements electronically to Li Zhou, Executive Secretary, United States Investment Advisory Council via email:
Send paper statements to Li Zhou, Executive Secretary, United States Investment Advisory Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Statements will be posted on the United States Investment Advisory Council Web site (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 11, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) issued
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in
Effective May 21, 2016.
John Conniff, 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) 482-1009.
On August 27, 2014, the Department issued the
The Court held that absent the administrative record underlying the 2011 subsidy rate (pulled forward to 2012), Toscelik lacked an argument “that could have resulted in redress of the error in the eleventh review.”
On April 15, 2016, the Department filed the Final Remand Results with the Court, in which it assigned Toscelik for the 2012 review Toscelik's amended
In
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld in a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by the above listed exporters at the rate listed above.
Since the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
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.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
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 place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 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 has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested 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 the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has 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.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than April 30, 2017.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
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 POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Atlantic Bluefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held Monday, June 27, 2016, from 9 a.m. until noon.
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
The purpose of the meeting is to create a fishery performance report (FPR) by the Council's Atlantic Bluefish Advisory Panel (AP). The intent of this report is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the AP members for the Atlantic Bluefish specifications process. The FPR will be used by the Council, its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Atlantic Bluefish Monitoring Committee (MC), when reviewing (at future meetings), and if necessary revising, the current measures designed to achieve the recommended Atlantic Bluefish catch and landings limits for 2017.
This 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, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Army proposes to alter the system of records notice A0690-990-2 SAMR, entitled “Voluntary Leave Transfer Program Records.” These records are used to manage voluntary leave transfers for Army civilian employees. The recipient's name, position data, organization, and a brief hardship description are published internally for passive solicitation purposes. The Social Security Number (SSN) is sought to effectuate the transfer of leave from the donor's account to the recipient's account.
Comments will be accepted on or before July 6, 2016. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905 or by calling (703) 428-6185.
The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on May 17, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About
Voluntary Leave Transfer Program Records (September 27, 2002, 67 FR 61078)
Delete entry and replace with “Department of the Army Federal employees who have volunteered to participate in the voluntary leave transfer program as either a donor or a recipient.”
Delete entry and replace with “Leave and donor recipient records including the individual's name, organization, office telephone number, Social Security Number (SSN), position title, grade, pay level, leave balances, number of hours requested, brief description of the medical or personal hardship which qualifies the individual for inclusion in the program, and the status of that hardship.
The file may also contain medical or physician certifications and agency approvals or denials.
This system of records contains individually identifiable health information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18-R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974 or mentioned in this system of records notice.”
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 6331
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To the Department of Labor in connection with a claim filed by an employee for compensation due to a job-connected injury or illness.
Where leave donor and leave recipient are employed by different Federal agencies, to the personnel and pay offices of the Federal agency involved to effectuate the leave transfer.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at:
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “By name and SSN.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are collected, used, and maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel. Physical security differs from site to site, but the automated records are maintained in controlled areas accessible only by authorized personnel. Access to electronic records is restricted by use of Common Access Cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The system and electronic backups are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”
Delete entry and replace with “Keep 1 year after case is closed than destroy by deleting or shredding.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Policy and Program Development, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0300.
For verification purposes, the individual should provide full name, current address, SSN, and the request must be signed.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United State of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Policy and Program Development, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0300.
For verification purposes, the individual should provide full name, current address, SSN, and the request must be signed.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United State of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program, or may be obtained from the system manager.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual, individual's designated representative, individual's leave records, and other federal employees.”
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC). The meeting is open to the public. For more information about the Committee, please visit
The Committee will meet from 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 7, 2016.
Arlington National Cemetery Welcome Center, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.
Ms. Renea Yates; Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150).
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The Board's charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at
The Board is composed of not more than 14 members who are eminent authorities in the fields of academia, business, and the defense industry. All members of the Board are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, Board members serve without compensation.
Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Board/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Information Collection Clearance Staff, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Community and Public Outreach, Room 2D982, 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400 or call 703-695-2036.
Respondents are individuals authorized to nominate candidates for participation in JCOC, and candidates nominated for and selected to participate in JCOC. The JCOC Nomination Form and Registration Form each record the nominator's credentials and contact information and the candidate's credentials and contact information. The completed forms are used to administer the JCOC program, verify the eligibility of nominators and candidates, and to select those nominated individuals for participation in JCOC, which is impossible to do without this information. Ensuring the credentials of nominators and candidates is vital to the integrity and accountability of the JCOC program.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of
Comments will be accepted on or before July 6, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
AFNConnect (AFNC) (October 27, 2015, 80 FR 65722)
Delete entry and replace with “Eligible military personnel (including retirees and reservists), DoD civilian employees, full time direct hire Department of State (DoS) employees, DoD contractors, and their Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) family members, to include widows, maintaining an American Forces Network (AFN) satellite decoder and/or accessing AFN Over the Top (OTT) Live Streaming and Video on Demand (VOD) services.”
Delete entry and replace with “To document the eligibility and continued validation of authorized OCONUS individuals who register an AFN satellite decoder and/or subscribe to AFN OTT Live Streaming and VOD Services. AFNConnect, AFN OTT Live Streaming, and VOD Services provide U.S. military commanders worldwide a means to communicate internal information to OCONUS users. Records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting research.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To the Department of State to verify authorized personnel's use of an AFN satellite decoder and/or AFN Over the Top (OTT) Live Streaming, and Video on Demand (VOD) services.
Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to foreign law enforcement, security, investigatory, or administrative authorities to comply with requirements imposed by, or to claim rights conferred in, international agreements and arrangements including those regulating the stationing and status in foreign countries of DoD military and civilian personnel.
Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at:
Delete entry and replace with “Records are accessible only to personnel on a need-to-know basis to perform their duties. All records are maintained on a protected network. Access to the network where records are maintained requires a valid Common Access Card (CAC). Electronic files and databases are password protected with access restricted to authorized users and networks. Access to physical hardware (
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 5, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO), Defense Logistics Agency, Attention: Ms. Karen Bond, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Mail Stop 5100, Fort Belvoir, VA 20060-6221, or contact the Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO) at (703) 767-6871.
The Data Item Descriptions in the ASSIST database, formerly the AMSDL, is a collection of data requirements used in Department of Defense contracts. Information collection requests are contained in DoD contract actions for supplies, services, hardware, and software. This information is collected and used by DoD and its component Military Departments and Agencies to support the design, test, manufacture, training, operation, maintenance, and logistical support of procured items, including weapons systems. The collection of such data is essential to accomplishing the assigned mission of the Department of Defense. Failure to collect this information would have a detrimental effect on the DoD acquisition programs and National Security. Information used to determine the burden hours is contained in the ASSIST Online database.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 6, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Stephanie Tatham, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Superior Armor Systems, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the fields of use of Multi-Ply Heterogeneous Armor; Polymer Coatings for Enhanced and Field-Repairable Transparent Armor; Body Armor of Ceramic Ball Embedded Polymer; and Polymer-Ceramic Coatings for Blast and Ballistic Mitigation in the United States, the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 8,746,122: Multi-Ply Heterogeneous Armor with Viscoelastic Layers and a Corrugated Front Surface, Navy Case No. 099,870.//U.S. Patent No. 8,789,454: Multi-Ply Heterogeneous Armor with Viscoelastic Layers and Cylindrical Armor Elements, Navy Case No. 099,870.//U.S. Patent No. 9,207,048: Multi-Ply Heterogeneous Armor with Viscoelastic Layers and Hemispherical, Conical and Angled Laminate Strikeface Projections, Navy Case No. 099,870.//U.S. Patent No. 9,285,191: Polymer Coatings for Enhanced and Field-Repairable Transparent Armor, Navy Case No. 102,832.//U.S. Patent No. 9,297,617: Method for Forming Cylindrical Armor Elements, Navy Case No. 099,870.//U.S. Patent Application No. 13/085,130: Multi-Ply Heterogeneous Armor with Viscoelastic Layers, Navy Case No. 099,870.//U.S. Patent Application No. 13/506,376: Body Armor of Ceramic Ball Embedded Polymer, Navy Case No. 101,504.//U.S. Patent No. 14/552,888: Elastomeric Bilayer Armor Incorporating Surface-Hardened Substrates, Navy Case No. 102,635.//U.S. Patent No. 14/751,596: Polymer Coatings with Embedded Hollow Spheres for Armor for Blast and Ballistic Mitigation, Navy Case No. 102,987 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than June 21, 2016.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, June 27, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Doubletree Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, 301-652-2000.
Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536 or email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research.
The NSAC Meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. You may find out how to access this broadcast by going to the following site prior to the start of the meeting. A video record of the meeting including the presentations that are made will be archived at this site after the meeting ends:
The minutes of the meeting will be available for review on the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Physics Web site at
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License.
The Department of Energy (DOE) hereby gives notice that DOE intends to grant an exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 8,389,178 titled “Electrochemical Energy Storage Device Based on Carbon Dioxide as Electroactive Species” to Boron Nitride Power, LLC, having its principal place of business at Chicago, Illinois. The patent is owned by United States of America, as represented by DOE.
Written comments, objections, or nonexclusive license applications must be received at the address listed no later than June 21, 2016.
Comments, applications for nonexclusive licenses, or objections relating to the prospective exclusive license should be submitted through
Marianne Lynch, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Room 6F-067, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Email:
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The prospective exclusive license also complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
35 U.S.C. 209(c) gives DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in federally-owned inventions where a determination is made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.
Boron Nitride Power has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in the U.S. Patent Number 8,389,178 and has plans for commercialization of the inventions.
Within 15 days of publication of this notice, any person may submit in writing to DOE's Assistant General Counsel for Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Office (see contact information), either of the following, together with supporting documents:
(i) A statement setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or (ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.
The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the United States, and subject to a negotiated royalty. DOE will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will grant the licenses if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period, and after consideration of any written responses to this notice, a determination is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c) that the licenses are in the public interest.
Department of Energy.
Notice of cancellation of open teleconference.
On May 23, 2016, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open meeting announcing a teleconference on June 6, 2016, of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. This notice announces the cancellation of this meeting.
The teleconference scheduled for June 6, 2016, announced in the May 23, 2016, issue of the
Jennifer Michael at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.
The opportunity for public comment is at 11:15 a.m. and 2:45 p.m.
This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
Hilton Garden Inn, 700 Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.
Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-6518; Fax (208) 526-8789 or email:
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Robert L. Pence for the most current agenda):
Department of Energy.
Notice of cancellation of open meeting.
On Mary 11, 2016, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on June 8, 2016, of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee. This notice announces the cancellation of this meeting. The meeting is being cancelled because the board will not have a quorum due to scheduling conflicts by members and presenters. DATES: The meeting scheduled for June 8, 2016, announced in the May 11, 2016, issue of the
Lou Capitanio, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-5098.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Petition for Waiver and Request for Public Comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from Thermal Solutions Products, LLC (Thermal Solutions) seeking an exemption from specified provisions applicable to standby loss of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the Thermal Solutions Petition until July 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by case number WH-003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mail Stop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email:
Title III, Part C
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
On March 9, 2015, Thermal Solutions filed a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 to measure standby loss of commercial water heating equipment. This petition addresses Thermal Solutions' specified models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. The current DOE efficiency test procedure for commercial water heaters incorporates by reference the relevant industry test standard for measuring thermal efficiency and standby loss, as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011,
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products and equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered products and equipment are important for consumers evaluating products when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for Thermal Solutions in a subsequent Decision and Order.
Thermal Solutions has submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure for measuring the standby loss of tube-type instantaneous water heaters as addressed in ANSI Z21.10.3-2013 sections 5.26, 5.27, and E.3. Specifically, Thermal Solutions has submitted the following alternate test procedure to accurately represent the standby loss of its commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water:
The following alternate test procedure is presented in the context of proposed changes to the referenced portions of ANSI Z21.10.3-2013.
For a water heater including a storage vessel, or any water heater having an input rating of less than 4000 Btu/hr per gallon (1112 kJ/L) of capacity, the storage capacity shall be within ± 5.0 percent of the manufacturer's rated volume.
The storage capacity shall be determined by weighing the system when dry and empty and reweighing it when full or by filling the system with water, the weight of which has been predetermined. The capacity shall then be computed in gallons and compared with the manufacturer's rated volume.
The amount of water contained in a tube type water heater or in a water heater which has not been tested under 5.26 shall be determined if it is 10 gallons or more.
The volume of water contained within the water heater shall be determined. This determination shall include all water contained within the unit from the inlet connection to the outlet connection but not the capacity of any separate storage vessels. The volume of water contained within the water heater shall then be computed in gallons.
The following proposed wording would be added to Annex E: Efficiency Test Procedures of ANSI Z21.10.3-2013.
The appliance shall be installed as specified in E.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency. This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise the water heater shall be put into operation under the same test conditions specified in E.1 and the outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1°C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperatures becomes constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, shut down the main burner(s) and, if applicable, wait for the water pump to shut down, and then start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time, ambient temperature, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption.
During the first hour, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be measured at the end of each 5 minute interval. For the remainder of the test, these measurements shall be made at the end of every 15 minute interval. The duration of this test shall be 24 hours. If the main burner is firing at 24 hours, continue the test until the main burner and the water pump, if applicable, have shut down.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature and the final outlet water temperature.
Calculate the average of the ambient air temperatures and the supply water temperatures taken at the end of each time interval, including the initial and final values.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
If the main burner(s) does not cycle on during this test, the hourly average standby loss calculation simplifies to:
For water heaters that will not initiate or cause actions that will initiate burner operation, the following simplified procedure may be used to measure the hourly standby loss.
This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise, provide the electrical connection as specified in E.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency, and start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time and begin measuring the electric consumption for one hour. Record the duration of the test and the total electrical consumption during the test.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
The following basic models are included in Thermal Solutions' petition:
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of and is publishing Thermal Solutions' petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for commercial water heaters for its EV(A,S,O)0750W**-*A*, EV(A,S,O)1000W**-*A*, EV(A,S,O)1500W**-*A*, and EV(A,S,O)2000W**-*A* commercial instantaneous water heater models, which contain 10 gallons or more of water. The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the thermal efficiency and standby loss of Thermal Solutions' specified basic models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. DOE is considering including this alternate test procedure in its subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is: Mr. Randy Witmer, Engineering Manager, Thermal Solutions Products, LLC, P.O. Box 3244, Lancaster, PA 17604-3244. All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401, Thermal Solutions Products, LLC is hereby applying for a waiver of the standby loss test procedure of 10 CFR 431.106 for the following basic models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water (sold under the Thermal Solutions brand name):
The current Department of Energy efficiency test procedure for commercial water heaters references the relevant test procedures for measuring thermal efficiency and standby loss specified in the standard, ANSI Z21.10.3-2011. The identified basic models rely on flow of water through the heater to activate the burner. As will be explained below, the current test procedure does not provide a proper representation of the standby loss of these models.
The current standby loss test procedure is described in Exhibit G.2 of ANSI Z21.10.3-2011. This procedure is designed to test tank-type water heaters which are thermostatically operated. The basic steps of the procedure are to heat the water within the water heater, turn off the burner or element and then measure all the energy consumption that occurs while the water heater is “standing by” for approximately 24 hours with no water being withdrawn from it. The key measurement of the test procedure is the energy consumed by the burner or heating element when the thermostat senses that the water in the tank has cooled down to the point where it needs to be reheated. The current test does not address water heaters that have no means to activate the burner or heating element if no heated water is being drawn from the unit,
The models for which Thermal Solutions Products, LLC is seeking this test procedure waiver employ tube type heat exchangers and are designed to be flow activated. That is, the burner does not turn on until water flow through the unit is sensed. Under the current standby loss test procedure, the burner on these models will not fire at any time during the test, and the resulting standby loss measurement would be nearly zero. That measurement is not representative of the standby loss characteristics of these models. Thermal Solutions Products, LLC believes that the current test procedure evaluates the standby loss of the identified basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of the true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
A list of manufacturers of all other basic models marketed in the United States known to Thermal Solutions Products, LLC to incorporate similar design characteristics is included as Attachment A.
An alternative procedure for measuring the standby loss of tube type instantaneous water heaters is included as Attachment B. This alternative procedure is presented as a proposed revision to the ANSI Z21.10.3-
For a water heater including a storage vessel, or any water heater having an input rating of less than 4000 Btu/hr per gallon (1112 kJ/L) of capacity, the storage capacity shall be within ± 5.0 percent of the manufacturer's rated volume.
The storage capacity shall be determined by weighing the system when dry and empty and reweighing it when full or by filling the system with water, the weight of which has
The amount of water contained in a tube type water heater or in a water heater which has not been tested under 5.26 shall be determined if it is 10 gallons or more.
The volume of water contained within the water heater shall be determined. This determination shall include all water contained within the unit from the inlet connection to the outlet connection but not the capacity of any separate storage vessels. The volume of water contained within the water heater shall then be computed in gallons.
The appliance shall be installed as specified in E.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency. This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise the water heater shall be put into operation under the same test conditions specified in E.1 and the outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1°C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperatures becomes constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1°C) over a 3 minute period, shut down the main burner(s) and, if applicable, wait for the water pump to shut down, and then start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time, ambient temperature, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption.
During the first hour, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be measured at the end of each 5 minute interval. For the remainder of the test, these measurements shall be made at the end of every 15 minute interval. The duration of this test shall be 24 hours. If the main burner is firing at 24 hours, continue the test until the main burner and the water pump, if applicable, have shut down.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature and the final outlet water temperature.
Calculate the average of the ambient air temperatures and the supply water temperatures taken at the end of each time interval, including the initial and final values.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
For water heaters that will not initiate or cause actions that will initiate burner operation, the following simplified procedure may be used to measure the hourly standby loss.
This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise, provide the electrical connection as specified in E.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency, and start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time and begin measuring the electric consumption for one hour. Record the duration of the test and the total electrical consumption during the test.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and request for public comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from Raypak Inc. (Raypak) seeking an exemption from specified provisions applicable to standby loss of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for commercial water heating equipment. The waiver request pertains to Raypak's specified models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. In its petition, Raypak contends that its specified water heater models that employ tube-type heat exchangers and are designed to be flow activated cannot be accurately tested using the currently applicable DOE test procedure. Consequently, Raypak seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address certain issues involved in testing the specific basic models identified in its petition. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning Raypak's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the Raypak Petition until July 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by case number WH-004, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email:
Title III, Part C
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
On May 5, 2015, Raypak filed a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 to measure standby loss of commercial water heating equipment. This petition addresses Raypak's specified models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. The current DOE efficiency test procedure for commercial water heaters incorporates by reference the relevant industry test standard for measuring thermal efficiency and standby loss, as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011,
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products and equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered products and equipment are important for consumers evaluating products when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for Raypak in a subsequent Decision and Order.
Raypak has submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure for measuring the standby loss of tube-type instantaneous water heaters as addressed in ANSI Z21.10.3-2012 sections E.1 and E.3. Specifically, Raypak has submitted the following alternate test procedure to accurately represent the standby loss of its
A water heater for installation on combustible floors shall be placed on
Placement in the test room shall be in an area protected from drafts.
Inlet and outlet piping shall be immediately turned vertically downward from the connections on a tank-type water heater so as to form heat traps. Any factory supplied heat traps shall be installed per the installation instructions. Thermocouples for measuring inlet and outlet water temperatures shall be installed before the inlet heat trap piping and after the outlet heat trap piping.
Water-tube water heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.
Insulate the water piping, including heat traps, for a length of 4 ft (1.22 m) from the connection at the appliance with material having a thermal resistance (R) value of not less than 4 [F·ft ·hr/Btu (0.7 K·m/W)]. Care should be taken so the insulation does not contact any appliance surface except at the location where the pipe connections penetrate the appliance jacket.
If the manufacturer has not provided a temperature and pressure relief valve, one shall be installed and insulated as specified above.
All tests shall be conducted with the natural draft established by the following vent pipe arrangements:
A vertically discharging vent connection shall have attached to and vertically above it, 5 ft (1.52 m) of vent pipe the same size as the outlet. If the vent does not discharge vertically, a suitable elbow shall be installed first.
The appliance shall be installed with the venting arrangement specified in the manufacturer's instructions. The water heater shall be installed with the manufacturer's specified minimum venting length venting arrangement.
During conduct of this test, the temperature of the supply water shall be maintained at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C). The pressure of the water supply shall be maintained between 40 psi (275.8 kPa) and the maximum pressure specified by the manufacturer for the appliance under test. The accuracy of the pressure measuring devices shall be ±1.0 psi (6.9 kPa). For a water-tube water heater, the inlet water temperature shall be maintained at the supply water temperature or as specified by the manufacturer (see 2.1.8).
A tank-type water heater shall be isolated by use of a shutoff valve in the supply line with an expansion tank installed in the supply line downstream of the shutoff valve. There shall be no shutoff means between the expansion tank and the appliance inlet.
The gas rate shall be adjusted as specified in 2.3.3. The outlet pressure of the gas appliance pressure regulator shall be within ± 10 percent of that recommended by the manufacturer. The higher heating value of the gas burned shall be obtained.
For tank-type water heaters, six (6) temperature sensing means shall be installed inside the storage tank on the vertical center of each of 6 nonoverlapping sections of approximately equal volume from the top to the bottom of the tank. Each temperature sensing means is to be located as far as possible from any heat source or other irregularity, anodic protective device, or water tank or flue wall. The anodic protective device may be removed in order to install the temperature sensing means and all testing may be carried out with the device removed.
If the temperature sensing means cannot be installed as specified above, placement of the temperature sensing means shall be made at the discretion of the testing agency so comparable water temperature measurements may be obtained.
A temperature sensing means, shielded against direct radiation and positioned at the vertical midpoint of the water heater at a perpendicular distance of approximately 24 in (610 mm) from the surface of the jacket, shall be installed in the test room.
Before starting testing of a tank-type water heater, the setting of the thermostat shall first be obtained by starting with the water in the system at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) and noting the maximum mean temperature of the water after the thermostat reduces the gas supply to a minimum. The temperature shall be 140 ± 5 °F (60 ± 3 °C).
Instrumentation shall be installed which determines, within ± 1 percent:
2. The quantity of electricity consumed by factory supplied water heater components, and of the test loop recirculating pump, if used.
The ambient air temperature of the test room shall be maintained at 75 ± 10 °F (24 ± 5.5 °C), as measured by the test room temperature sensing means described in “-f” above.
The ambient air temperatures shall be measured at 15 minute intervals during conduct of this test. The room temperature shall not vary more than ± 7.0 °F (± 4 °C) from the average during the test, temperature readings being taken by means of a recording thermometer at 15 minute intervals and averaged at the end of the test.
The outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperature has become constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, the outlet water shall be diverted from the waste line to a weighing container. A scale with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw shall be used. Water shall be allowed to flow into the weighing container for exactly 30 minutes. The gas consumption and electrical power consumption of factory supplied heater components and of the test loop-recirculating pump, if used, shall be measured for the 30 minute period. At this time, the outlet water shall be diverted back into the waste
A water meter with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw may be used instead of the scale and weighing container.
Thermal efficiency, Et, shall be computed by use of the following formula:
The appliance shall be installed as specified in G.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency. This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise, the water heater shall be put into operation under the same test conditions specified in G.1, and the outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperatures becomes constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, shut down the main burner(s) and, if applicable, wait for the water pump to shut down, and then start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time, ambient temperature, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature, and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption.
During the first hour, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be measured at the end of each 5 minute interval. For the remainder of the test, these measurements shall be made at the end of every 15 minute interval. The duration of this test shall be 24 hours. If the main burner is firing at 24 hours, continue the test until the main burner and the water pump, if applicable, have shut down.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature, and the final outlet water temperature.
Calculate the average of the ambient air temperatures and the supply water temperatures taken at the end of each time interval, including the initial and final values.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
If the main burner(s) does not cycle on during this test, the hourly average standby loss calculation simplifies to:
For water heaters that will not initiate or cause actions that will initiate burner operation, the following simplified procedure may be used to measure the hourly standby loss.
This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise provide the electrical connection as specified in G.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency, and start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time and begin measuring the electric consumption for one hour. Record the duration of the test and the total electrical consumption during the test.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
The following basic models are included in Raypak's petition:
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of and is publishing Raypak's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for commercial water heaters for its above-referenced commercial instantaneous water heater models, which contain 10 gallons or more of water. The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the thermal efficiency and standby loss of Raypak's specified basic models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. DOE is considering including this alternate test procedure in its subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401, Raypak Inc. is hereby applying for a waiver of the standby loss test procedure of 10 CFR .431.106 for the following basic model(s) of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water:
The current Department of Energy efficiency test procedure for commercial water heaters references the relevant test procedures for measuring thermal efficiency and standby loss specified in the standard, ANSI Z21.10.3-2011. The identified basic models rely on flow of water through the heater to activate the burner. As will be explained below, the current test procedure does not provide a proper representation of the standby loss of these models.
The current standby loss test procedure is included as Attachment A. This procedure is designed to test tank-type water heaters which are thermostatically operated. The basic steps of the procedure are to heat the water within the water heater, turn off the burner or element and then measure all the energy consumption that occurs while the water heater is “standing by” for approximately 24 hours with no water being withdrawn from it. The key measurement of the test procedure is the energy consumed by the burner or heating element when the thermostat senses that the water in the tank has cooled down to the point where it needs to be reheated. The current test does not address water heaters that have no means to activate the burner or heating element if no heated water is being drawn from the unit,
The models for which Raypak Inc. is seeking this test procedure waiver employ tube type heat exchangers and are designed to be flow activated. That is, the burner does not come on until water flow through the unit is sensed. Under the current standby loss test procedure, the burner on these models will not fire at any time during the test and the resulting standby loss measurement would be nearly zero. That measurement is not representative of the standby loss characteristics of these models. Raypak Inc. believes that the current test procedure evaluates the standby loss of the identified basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of the true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
The manufacturers of other basic models marketed in the United States known to Raypak Inc. to incorporate similar design characteristics is included as Attachment B.
An alternative procedure for measuring the standby loss of tube type instantaneous water heater is included as Attachment C. Raypak Inc. believes this alternative provides a representative measure of the standby loss of these models. Raypak Inc. requests that DOE grant it a waiver to use this alternative procedure in lieu of the standby loss procedure specified in the current DOE efficiency test procedures for commercial water heaters.
The appliance shall be installed as specified in E.1, Method of test for measuring thermal efficiency. The gas to the main burner(s) shall be turned on and the appliance put into operation. After the first cutout, allow the water heater to remain in the standby mode until the next cutout. At this time record the time, ambient temperature and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption. Record the maximum mean tank temperature that occurs after cutout.
At the end of the first 15 minute interval and at the end of each subsequent 15 minute interval, the mean tank temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be recorded. The duration of this test shall be until the first cutout that occurs after 24 hours or 48 hours, whichever comes first.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature, and the time duration of the standby loss test (t) in hours rounded to the nearest one hundredth of an hour and the maximum
Determine the difference (ΔT
The ratio of the average hourly energy consumption to the heat content of the stored water above room temperatures, in percent, rounded to the nearest one hundredth shall be determined by the formula:
A water heater for installation on combustible floors shall be placed on
Placement in the test room shall be in an area protected from drafts.
Inlet and outlet piping shall be immediately turned vertically downward from the connections on a tank-type water heater so as to form heat traps. Any factory supplied heat traps shall be installed per the installation instructions. Thermocouples for measuring inlet and outlet water temperatures shall be installed before the inlet heat trap piping and after the outlet heat trap piping.
Water-tube water heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.
Insulate the water piping, including heat traps, for a length of 4 ft (1.22 m) from the connection at the appliance with material having a thermal resistance (R) value of not less than4 [F·ft ·hr/Btu (0.7 K·m/W)]. Care should be taken so the insulation does not contact any appliance surface except at the location where the pipe connections penetrate the appliance jacket.
If the manufacturer has not provided a temperature and pressure relief valve, one shall be installed and insulated as specified above.
All tests shall be conducted with the natural draft established by the following vent pipe arrangements:
A vertically discharging vent connection shall have attached to and vertically above it, 5 ft (1.52 m) of vent pipe the same size as the outlet. If the vent does not discharge vertically, a suitable elbow shall be installed first.
The appliance shall be installed with the venting arrangement specified in the manufacturer's instructions. The water heater shall be installed with the manufacturer's specified minimum venting length venting arrangement.
During conduct of this test, the temperature of the supply water shall be maintained at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C). The pressure of the water supply shall be maintained between 40 psi (275.8 kPa) and the maximum pressure specified by the manufacturer for the appliance under test. The accuracy of the pressure measuring devices shall be ±1.0 psi (6.9 kPa). For a water-tube water heater, the inlet water temperature shall be maintained at the supply water temperature or as specified by the manufacturer (see 2.1.8).
A tank-type water heater shall be isolated by use of a shutoff valve in the supply line with an expansion tank installed in the supply line downstream of the shutoff valve. There shall be no shutoff means between the expansion tank and the appliance inlet.
The gas rate shall be adjusted as specified in 2.3.3. The outlet pressure of the gas appliance pressure regulator shall be within ± 10 percent of that recommended by the manufacturer. The higher heating value of the gas burned shall be obtained.
For tank-type water heaters, six (6) temperature sensing means shall be installed inside the storage tank on the vertical center of each of 6 nonoverlapping sections of approximately equal volume from the top to the bottom of the tank. Each temperature sensing means is to be located as far as possible from any heat source or other irregularity, anodic protective device, or water tank or flue wall. The anodic protective device may be removed in order to install the temperature sensing means and all testing may be carried out with the device removed.
If the temperature sensing means cannot be installed as specified above, placement of the temperature sensing means shall be made at the discretion of the testing agency so comparable water temperature measurements may be obtained.
A temperature sensing means, shielded against direct radiation and positioned at the vertical midpoint of the water heater at a perpendicular distance of approximately 24 in (610 mm) from the surface of the jacket, shall be installed in the test room.
Before starting testing of a tank-type water heater, the setting of the thermostat shall first be obtained by starting with the water in the system at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) and noting the maximum mean temperature of the water after the thermostat reduces the gas supply to a minimum. The temperature shall be 140 ± 5 °F (60 ± 3 °C).
Instrumentation shall be installed which determines, within ± 1 percent:
1. The quantity and rate of gas consumed.
2. The quantity of electricity consumed by factory supplied water heater components, and of the test loop recirculating pump, if used.
The ambient air temperature of the test room shall be maintained at 75 ± 10 °F (24 ± 5.5 °C), as measured by the test room temperature sensing means described in “-f” above.
The ambient air temperatures shall be measured at 15 minute intervals during conduct of this test. The room temperature shall not vary more than ± 7.0 °F (± 4°C) from the average during the test, temperature readings being taken by means of a recording thermometer at 15 minute intervals and averaged at the end of the test.
The outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ±2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperature has become constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, the outlet water shall be diverted from the waste line to a weighing container. A scale with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw shall be used. Water shall be allowed to flow into the weighing container for exactly 30 minutes. The gas consumption and electrical power consumption of factory supplied heater components and of the test loop-recirculating pump, if used, shall be measured for the 30 minute period. At this time, the outlet water shall be diverted back into the waste line, the meter readings noted, and the weight of heater water recorded. Throughout the period of test, supply and outlet water temperatures shall be recorded every minute. The temperature, pressure and heating value of the gas metered and barometric pressure shall be obtained.
A water meter with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw may be used instead of the scale and weighing container.
Thermal efficiency, E
The appliance shall be installed as specified in G.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency. This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise, the water heater shall be put into operation under the same test conditions specified in G.1, and the outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperatures becomes constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, shut down the main burner(s) and, if applicable, wait for the water pump to shut down, and then start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time, ambient temperature, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature, and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption.
During the first hour, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be measured at the end of each 5 minute interval. For the remainder of the test, these measurements shall be made at the end of every 15 minute interval. The duration of this test shall be 24 hours. If the main burner is firing at 24 hours, continue the test until the main burner and the water pump, if applicable, have shut down.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature, and the final outlet water temperature.
Calculate the average of the ambient air temperatures and the supply water temperatures taken at the end of each time interval, including the initial and final values.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
If the main burner(s) does not cycle on during this test, the hourly average standby loss calculation simplifies to:
For water heaters that will not initiate or cause actions that will initiate burner operation, the following simplified procedure may be used to measure the hourly standby loss.
This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise provide the electrical connection as specified in G.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency, and start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time and begin measuring the electric consumption for one hour. Record the duration of the test and the total electrical consumption during the test.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and request for public comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from HTP, Inc. (HTP) seeking an exemption from specified provisions applicable to standby loss of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for commercial water heating equipment. The waiver request pertains to HTP's specified models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. In its petition, HTP contends that its specified water heater models that employ tube-type heat exchangers and are designed to be flow activated cannot be accurately tested using the currently applicable DOE test procedure. Consequently, HTP seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address certain issues involved in testing the specific basic models identified in its petition. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning HTP's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the HTP Petition until July 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by case number WH-002, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mail Stop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email:
Title III, Part C
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
On February 17, 2015, HTP filed a petition for waiver from the DOE test
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products and equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered products and equipment are important for consumers evaluating products when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for HTP in a subsequent Decision and Order.
HTP has submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure for measuring the standby loss of tube-type instantaneous water heaters as addressed in ANSI Z21.10.3-2012 sections E.1 and E.3. Specifically, HTP has submitted the following alternate test procedure to accurately represent the standby loss of its commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water:
A water heater for installation on combustible floors shall be placed on
Placement in the test room shall be in an area protected from drafts.
Inlet and outlet piping shall be immediately turned vertically downward from the connections on a tank-type water heater so as to form heat traps. Any factory supplied heat traps shall be installed per the installation instructions. Thermocouples for measuring inlet and outlet water temperatures shall be installed before the inlet heat trap piping and after the outlet heat trap piping.
Water-tube water heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.
Insulate the water piping, including heat traps, for a length of 4 ft (1.22 m) from the connection at the appliance with material having a thermal resistance (R) value of not less than 4 [F·ft ·hr/Btu (0.7 K·m/W)]. Care should be taken so the insulation does not contact any appliance surface except at the location where the pipe connections penetrate the appliance jacket.
If the manufacturer has not provided a temperature and pressure relief valve, one shall be installed and insulated as specified above.
All tests shall be conducted with the natural draft established by the following vent pipe arrangements:
A vertically discharging vent connection shall have attached to and vertically above it, 5 ft (1.52 m) of vent pipe the same size as the outlet. If the vent does not discharge vertically, a suitable elbow shall be installed first.
The appliance shall be installed with the venting arrangement specified in the manufacturer's instructions. The water heater shall be installed with the manufacturer's specified minimum venting length venting arrangement.
During conduct of this test, the temperature of the supply water shall be maintained at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C). The pressure of the water supply shall be maintained between 40 psi (275.8 kPa) and the maximum pressure specified by the manufacturer for the appliance under test. The accuracy of the pressure measuring devices shall be ±1.0 psi (6.9 kPa). For a water-tube water heater, the inlet water temperature shall be maintained at the supply water temperature or as specified by the manufacturer (see 2.1.8).
A tank-type water heater shall be isolated by use of a shutoff valve in the supply line with an expansion tank installed in the supply line downstream of the shutoff valve. There shall be no shutoff means between the expansion tank and the appliance inlet.
The gas rate shall be adjusted as specified in 2.3.3. The outlet pressure of the gas appliance pressure regulator shall be within ± 10 percent of that recommended by the manufacturer. The higher heating value of the gas burned shall be obtained.
For tank-type water heaters, six (6) temperature sensing means shall be installed inside the storage tank on the vertical center of each of 6 nonoverlapping sections of approximately equal volume from the top to the bottom of the tank. Each temperature sensing means is to be located as far as possible from any heat source or other irregularity, anodic protective device, or water tank or flue wall. The anodic protective device may
If the temperature sensing means cannot be installed as specified above, placement of the temperature sensing means shall be made at the discretion of the testing agency so comparable water temperature measurements may be obtained.
A temperature sensing means, shielded against direct radiation and positioned at the vertical midpoint of the water heater at a perpendicular distance of approximately 24 in (610 mm) from the surface of the jacket, shall be installed in the test room.
Before starting testing of a tank-type water heater, the setting of the thermostat shall first be obtained by starting with the water in the system at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) and noting the maximum mean temperature of the water after the thermostat reduces the gas supply to a minimum. The temperature shall be 140 ± 5 °F (60 ± 3 °C).
Instrumentation shall be installed which determines, within ± 1 percent:
1. The quantity and rate of gas consumed.
2. The quantity of electricity consumed by factory supplied water heater components, and of the test loop recirculating pump, if used.
The ambient air temperature of the test room shall be maintained at 75 ± 10 °F (24 ± 5.5 °C), as measured by the test room temperature sensing means described in “-f” above.
The ambient air temperatures shall be measured at 15 minute intervals during conduct of this test. The room temperature shall not vary more than ± 7.0 °F (± 4 °C) from the average during the test, temperature readings being taken by means of a recording thermometer at 15 minute intervals and averaged at the end of the test.
The outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperature has become constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, the outlet water shall be diverted from the waste line to a weighing container. A scale with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw shall be used. Water shall be allowed to flow into the weighing container for exactly 30 minutes. The gas consumption and electrical power consumption of factory supplied heater components and of the test loop-recirculating pump, if used, shall be measured for the 30 minute period. At this time, the outlet water shall be diverted back into the waste line, the meter readings noted, and the weight of heater water recorded. Throughout the period of test, supply and outlet water temperatures shall be recorded every minute. The temperature, pressure and heating value of the gas metered and barometric pressure shall be obtained.
A water meter with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw may be used instead of the scale and weighing container.
Thermal efficiency, Et, shall be computed by use of the following formula:
The appliance shall be installed as specified in G.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency. This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise, the water heater shall be put into operation under the same test conditions specified in G.1, and the outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2 °F (21 ± 1 °C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperatures becomes constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2 °F (1 °C) over a 3 minute period, shut down the main burner(s) and, if applicable, wait for the water pump to shut down, and then start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time, ambient temperature, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature, and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption.
During the first hour, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be measured at the end of each 5 minute interval. For the remainder of the test, these measurements shall be made at the end of every 15 minute interval. The duration of this test shall be 24 hours. If the main burner is firing at 24 hours, continue the test until the main burner and the water pump, if applicable, have shut down.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature, and the final outlet water temperature.
Calculate the average of the ambient air temperatures and the supply water temperatures taken at the end of each time interval, including the initial and final values.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
If the main burner(s) does not cycle on during this test, the hourly average standby loss calculation simplifies to:
For water heaters that will not initiate or cause actions that will initiate burner operation, the following simplified procedure may be used to measure the hourly standby loss.
This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise provide the electrical connection as specified in G.1., Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency, and start the test.
At the start of the test, record the time and begin measuring the electric consumption for one hour.
Record the duration of the test and the total electrical consumption during the test.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
The following basic models are included in HTP's petition:
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of and is publishing HTP's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for commercial water heaters for its ModCon 1000VWH and ModCon 1700VWH commercial instantaneous water heater models, which contain 10 gallons or more of water. The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the thermal efficiency and standby loss of HTP's specified basic models of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water. DOE is considering including this alternate test procedure in its subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is: Mr. Aleksandr Kovalenko, Director of Engineering, HTP, Inc., P.O. Box 429, 120 Braley Road, East Freetown, MA 02717. All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401, HTP, Inc. is hereby applying for a waiver of the standby loss test procedure of 10 CFR .431.106 for the following basic model(s) of commercial instantaneous water heaters containing 10 gallons or more of water.
The current Department of Energy efficiency test procedure for commercial water heaters references the relevant test procedures for measuring thermal efficiency and standby loss specified in the standard, ANSI Z21.10.3-2011. The identified basic model(s) rely on flow of water through the heater to activate the burner. As will be explained below, the current test procedure does not provide a proper representation of the standby loss of these models.
The current standby loss test procedure is included as Attachment A. This procedure is designed to test tank-type water heaters which are thermostatically operated. The basic steps of the procedure are to heat the water within the water heater, turn off the burner or element and then measure all the energy consumption that occurs while the water heater is “standing by” for approximately 24 hours with no water being withdrawn from it. The key measurement of the test procedure is the energy consumed by the burner or heating element when the thermostat senses that the water in the tank has cooled down to the point where it needs to be reheated. The current test does not address water heaters that have no means to activate the burner or heating element if no heated water is being drawn from the unit,
The models for which HTP, Inc. is seeking this test procedure waiver employ tube type heat exchangers and are designed to be flow activated. That is, the burner does not come on until water flow through the unit is sensed. Under the current standby loss test procedure, the burner on these models will not fire at any time during the test and the resulting standby loss measurement would be nearly zero. That measurement is not representative of the standby loss characteristics of these models. HTP, Inc. believes that the current test procedure evaluates the standby loss of the identified basic model(s) in a manner so unrepresentative of the true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
The manufacturers of all other basic models marketed in the United States known to HTP, Inc. do incorporate similar design characteristics is included as Attachment B.
An alternative procedure for measuring the standby loss of tube type instantaneous water heater is included as Attachment C. HTP, Inc. believes this
AHRI Recommended Standby Loss Test Procedure for Commercial Tube-Type Instantaneous Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers That Contain At Least 10 Gallons of Water
A water heater for installation on combustible floors shall be placed on
Placement in the test room shall be in an area protected from drafts.
Inlet and outlet piping shall be immediately turned vertically downward from the connections on a tank-type water heater so as to form heat traps. Any factory supplied heat traps shall be installed per the installation instructions. Thermocouples for measuring inlet and outlet water temperatures shall be installed before the inlet heat trap piping and after the outlet heat trap piping.
Water-tube water heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.
Insulate the water piping, including heat traps, for a length of 4 ft (1.22 m) from the connection at the appliance with material having a thermal resistance (R) value of not less than 4 [F·ft ·hr/Btu (0.7 K·m/W)]. Care should be taken so the insulation does not contact any appliance surface except at the location where the pipe connections penetrate the appliance jacket.
If the manufacturer has not provided a temperature and pressure relief valve, one shall be installed and insulated as specified above.
1. Appliance Equipped With Draft Hoods
All tests shall be conducted with the natural draft established by the following vent pipe arrangements:
A vertically discharging vent connection shall have attached to and vertically above it, 5 ft (1.52 m) of vent pipe the same size as the outlet. If the vent does not discharge vertically, a suitable elbow shall be installed first.
2. Direct Vent Appliances and Mechanically Vented
The appliance shall be installed with the venting arrangement specified in the manufacturer's instructions. The water heater shall be installed with the manufacturer's specified minimum venting length venting arrangement.
During conduct of this test, the temperature of the supply water shall be maintained at 70 ± 2°F (21 ± 1°C). The pressure of the water supply shall be maintained between 40 psi (275.8 kPa) and the maximum pressure specified by the manufacturer for the appliance under test. The accuracy of the pressure measuring devices shall be ±1.0 psi (6.9 kPa). For a water-tube water heater, the inlet water temperature shall be maintained at the supply water temperature or as specified by the manufacturer (see 2.1.8).
A tank-type water heater shall be isolated by use of a shutoff valve in the supply line with an expansion tank installed in the supply line downstream of the shutoff valve. There shall be no shutoff means between the expansion tank and the appliance inlet.
The gas rate shall be adjusted as specified in 2.3.3. The outlet pressure of the gas appliance pressure regulator shall be within ± 10 percent of that recommended by the manufacturer. The higher heating value of the gas burned shall be obtained.
For tank-type water heaters, six (6) temperature sensing means shall be installed inside the storage tank on the vertical center of each of 6 nonoverlapping sections of approximately equal volume from the top to the bottom of the tank. Each temperature sensing means is to be located as far as possible from any heat source or other irregularity, anodic protective device, or water tank or flue wall. The anodic protective device may be removed in order to install the temperature sensing means and all testing may be carried out with the device removed.
If the temperature sensing means cannot be installed as specified above, placement of the temperature sensing means shall be made at the discretion of the testing agency so comparable water temperature measurements may be obtained.
A temperature sensing means, shielded against direct radiation and positioned at the vertical midpoint of the water heater at a perpendicular distance of approximately 24 in (610 mm) from the surface of the jacket, shall be installed in the test room.
Before starting testing of a tank-type water heater, the setting of the thermostat shall first be obtained by starting with the water in the system at 70 ± 2°F (21 ± 1°C) and noting the maximum mean temperature of the water after the thermostat reduces the gas supply to a minimum. The temperature shall be 140 ± 5°F (60 ± 3°C).
Instrumentation shall be installed which determines, within ± 1 percent:
1. The quantity and rate of gas consumed.
2. The quantity of electricity consumed by factory supplied water heater components, and of the test loop recirculating pump, if used.
The ambient air temperature of the test room shall be maintained at 75 ± 10°F (24 ± 5.5°C), as measured by the test room temperature sensing means described in “−f” above.
The ambient air temperatures shall be measured at 15 minute intervals during conduct of this test. The room temperature shall not vary more than ± 7.0°F (± 4°C) from the average during the test, temperature readings being taken by means of a recording thermometer at 15 minute intervals and averaged at the end of the test.
The outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2°F (21 ± 1°C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperature has become constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2°F (1°C) over a 3 minute period, the outlet water shall be diverted from the waste line to a weighing container. A scale with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw shall be used. Water shall be allowed to flow into the weighing container for exactly 30 minutes. The gas consumption and electrical power consumption of factory supplied heater components and of the test loop-recirculating pump, if used, shall be measured for the 30 minute period. At this time, the outlet water shall be diverted back into the waste line, the meter readings noted, and the weight of heater water recorded. Throughout the period of test, supply and outlet water temperatures shall be recorded every minute. The temperature, pressure and heating value of the gas metered and barometric pressure shall be obtained.
A water meter with an error no greater than 1 percent of the total draw may be used instead of the scale and weighing container.
Thermal efficiency, Et, shall be computed by use of the following formula:
The appliance shall be installed as specified in E.1, Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency. This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise the water heater shall be put into operation under the same test conditions specified in E.1 and the outlet water temperature shall be adjusted by varying the rate of flow until temperature is constant at 70 ± 2°F (21 ± 1°C) above the supply temperature. After the outlet temperatures becomes constant, as indicated by no variation in excess of 2°F (1°C) over a 3 minute period, shut down the main burner(s) and, if applicable, wait for the water pump to shut down, and then start the test.
At the start of the test record the time, ambient temperature, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and begin measuring the fuel and electric consumption.
During the first hour, outlet water temperature, supply water temperature and the ambient air temperature shall be measured at the end of each 5 minute interval. For the remainder of the test, these measurements shall be made at the end of every 15 minute interval. The duration of this test shall be 24 hours. If the main burner is firing at 24 hours, continue the test until the main burner and the water pump, if applicable, have shut down.
Immediately after the conclusion of the test, record the total fuel flow and electrical energy consumption, the final ambient air temperature and the final outlet water temperature.
Calculate the average of the ambient air temperatures and the supply water temperatures taken at the end of each time interval, including the initial and final values.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
If the main burner(s) does not cycle on during this test the hourly average standby loss calculation simplifies to:
For water heaters that will not initiate or cause actions that will initiate burner operation, the following simplified procedure may be used to measure the hourly standby loss.
This test may be conducted immediately following the thermal efficiency test. In this case, start the test after the main burner(s) has shut down and, if applicable, the water pump has shut down. Otherwise, provide the electrical connection as specified in E.1 Method of Test for Measuring Thermal Efficiency and start the test.
At the start of the test record the time and begin measuring the electric consumption for one hour. Record the duration of the test and the total electrical consumption during the test.
The average hourly standby loss, S, rounded to the nearest Btu per hour, shall be determined by the formula:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Oklahoma's request to revise/modify its General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing And New Sources Of Pollution and State Sludge Management Program Regulations EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective June 6, 2016.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On October 27, 2014, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OK DEQ) submitted a modification to their amended application titled “Electronic Document Receiving System” for revision/modification to its EPA-approved pretreatment and sludge management programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed OK DEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized Part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing And New Sources Of Pollution and 501—State Sludge Management Program Regulations and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Oklahoma's request to revise/modify its Part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing And New Sources Of Pollution and 501—State Sludge Management Program Regulations to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 403-471, 501, and 503 is being published in the
OK DEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft ecological risk assessments for the registration review of atrazine, propazine, and simazine and opens a public comment period on these documents. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft ecological risk assessments for all atrazine, propazine, and simazine uses. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk assessments, respond to comments, and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing proposed registration review decisions for atrazine, propazine, and simazine. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager listed in Table 1 of Unit III.
1.
2.
3.
EPA is conducting its registration review of atrazine, simazine, and propazine pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.
As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations for atrazine, simazine, and propazine to ensure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that atrazine, simazine, and propazine can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft ecological risk assessments for atrazine, simazine, and propazine. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as
1.
2.
• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.
• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.
• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.
• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are holding a 2-day workshop to discuss potential refinements to the interim scientific methods used in the first nationwide draft biological evaluations for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion, released for public comment on April 11, 2016. These interim scientific methods were developed by EPA and the Services, with collaboration from USDA on crop production, pesticide use, and the spatial footprint of agricultural use patterns, in response to the 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report entitled, “Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides.” This workshop builds upon public meetings held in November 2013, April and October 2014, and April 2015, and provides a forum for stakeholders to offer scientific and technical feedback on three topics of interest: (1) Improving aquatic modeling, (2) refinements to Step 1 (making “may affect” or “no effect” determinations) and Step 2 (making “likely to adversely affect” or “not likely to adversely affect” determinations), and (3) the weight of evidence approach. The workshop is not designed, or intended, to be a decision-making forum; consensus will not be sought, or developed at the meeting. This meeting is intended to further the agencies' goal of developing a sustainable methodology and process as part of the consultation process for assessing pesticide impacts on threatened and endangered (listed) species that is efficient, inclusive, and transparent.
The meeting will be held on June 29, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and June 30, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There will be a teleconference line and webinar available for those interested in calling in for introductory and concluding plenary sessions at the beginning and the end of the workshop. Attendees must register by June 22, 2016 to attend either in person or via teleconference/webinar.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person(s) listed under
The meeting will be held at FWS Skyline Bldg. 7, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Bailey's Crossroads, VA 22041-3803, in the Rachel Carson Room. See Unit III for additional information.
Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0233, may be submitted to the persons listed under
For general information and to register to attend, contact: Khue Nguyen, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-347-0248; email address:
For meeting logistics and special accommodations, contact: Leona Laniawe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, Ecological Services, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone: (703) 358-2640; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you develop, manufacture, formulate, sell, and/or apply pesticide products, and if you are interested in the potential impacts of pesticide use on listed species. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop Production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal Production (NAICS code 112).
• Food Manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide Manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
The docket for this action, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0233, is available at
This workshop is an opportunity for stakeholders and agencies to continue their dialogue on the technical aspects of implementing the NAS recommendations in the context of ongoing interagency efforts to develop a method for assessing risks to endangered species. This workshop builds upon implementation of the enhanced stakeholder engagement process that was finalized in March 2013, and public meetings held in November 2013, April and October 2014, and April 2015. The workshop is not designed, or intended to be a decision-making forum; consensus will not be sought, or developed at the meeting. Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback and suggest ideas for further refinement in three topic areas related to the draft biological evaluations for the three pilot chemicals (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion): (1) Improving aquatic exposure modeling, (2) refinements to the interim method for Step 1 (making “may affect” or “no effect” determinations) and Step 2 (making “likely to adversely affect” or “not likely to adversely affect” determinations), and (3) the approach to the weight of evidence.
The structure of this workshop differs from the structure of previous workshops. Only the opening and concluding plenary sessions of the workshop will be open to the general public. The rest of the workshop is divided into 6 breakout groups. Each breakout group will discuss technical questions related to the three main topics of interest: (1) Improving aquatic modeling, (2) refinements to Step 1 and Step 2, and (3) the approach to the weight of evidence. Because of the highly technical nature of these topics, the breakout groups will be by invitation only during initial registration. Invitees with specialized expertise in the three topic areas will be identified by the workshop Steering Committee composed of members from EPA, FWS, NMFS, and representatives from industry, grower groups, and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). After initial registration, each breakout group will be open to the public on a first-come-first-served basis until maximum capacity is reached. Maximum capacity is 20 people per breakout group.
The agencies' interim approach document entitled, “Interagency Approach for Implementation of the National Academy of Sciences Report”, dated November 13, 2013, and the presentation materials from the November 2013 stakeholder workshop are available at:
Representatives from the federal agencies will participate in the breakout groups and plenary sessions to guide the discussion and answer clarifying questions regarding the need for refinement of the current interim methods. The agencies see this workshop as an integral component of the stakeholder engagement process developed for pesticide consultations that contributes to the agencies' commitment to adapt and refine the interim approaches as we progress through the initial pesticide consultations for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion.
You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person(s) listed under
7 U.S.C. 136
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on June 9, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
• May 12, 2016
• Annual Report on the Farm Credit System's Young, Beginning, and Small Farmer Mission Performance: 2015 Results
• Quarterly Report on Economic Conditions and FCS Conditions
• Semi-Annual Report on Office of Examination Operations
• Office of Examination Quarterly Report
* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10418, Central Florida State Bank, Belleview, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Central Florida State Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective June 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10450, First Cherokee State Bank, Woodstock, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Cherokee State Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective June 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On January 5, 2016, (81 FR 239), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of these collections, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 6, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper or Manny Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:
1.
The FDIC's policy statement on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions provides guidance to private capital investors interested in acquiring or investing in failed insured depository institutions regarding the terms and conditions for such investments or acquisitions. The information collected pursuant to the policy statement allows the FDIC to evaluate, among other things, whether such investors (and their related interests) could negatively impact the Deposit Insurance Fund, increase resolution costs, or operate in a manner that conflict with statutory safety and soundness principles and compliance requirements.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10287, Bank of Ellijay, Ellijay, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Bank of Ellijay (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective June 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 June 30, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Travel Costs.
Submit comments on or before July 6, 2016.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-969-7226 or via email at
FAR 31.205-46, Travel Costs, requires that, except in extraordinary and temporary situations, costs incurred by a contractor for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses shall be considered to be reasonable and allowable only to the extent that they do not exceed on a daily basis the per diem rates in effect as of the time of travel.
These requirements are set forth in the Federal Travel Regulation for travel in the conterminous 48 United States; in the Joint Travel Regulation for travel in Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and territories and possessions of the United States; and in the Department of State Standardized Regulations, section 925, “Maximum Travel Per Diem Allowances for Foreign Areas.” The burden generated by this coverage is in the form of the contractor preparing a justification whenever a higher actual expense reimbursement method is used. A notice was published in the
One respondent submitted public comments on the extension of the previously approved information collection.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can
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 require; to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by August 5, 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.
This reinstatement request clarifies the removal of the HIPAA Security complaint category. Specifically, the information collection revisions clarify the “Identify the HIPAA Non-Privacy/Security complaint category” section of the complaint form. In this section, complainants are given an opportunity to check the “Unique Identifiers” and “Operating Rules” option to additionally categorize the type of HIPAA complaint being filed. The revised form now includes an option for identifying Unique Identifier and Operating Rules complaints. It also requests email information about filed against entities, if available.
Head Start Performance Standards are the result of a legislative mandate to administer a high quality comprehensive child development program that serves low-income pregnant women, infants and toddlers, preschoolers and their families. The information collection aspects of the Performance Standards are a part of the many actions that local agencies must take to ensure they administer quality programs for Head Start children and families. The information collection items included in the Performance Standards are almost entirely record-keeping requirements for local Head Start programs; these records are intended to act as a tool for grantees and delegate agencies to be used in their day-to-day operations. Such records are maintained by the grantees and delegate agencies and are not part of a standard information collection submitted to the Federal government. Local programs are monitored for overall compliance with the Performance Standards, including the record-keeping aspects.
Cost per respondent is $10,290.64 estimated at 16 responses × 41.9 hours × $15.35 per hour. Monetary costs associated with information collection requirements for Head Start are the salaries of the staff performing the duties. These costs are assumed by the Federal Government through the provision of program operating costs.
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.
Office of Community Services, ACF, HHS.
Notice of determination concerning funds available for reallotment.
Notice is hereby given of a preliminary determination that funds from the fiscal year (FY) 2015 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are available for reallotment to states, territories, tribes, and Tribal Organizations that received FY 2016 direct LIHEAP grants. No subgrantees or other entities may apply for these funds.
Section 2607(b)(1) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (the Act), (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1)) requires that, if the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines that, as of September 1 of any fiscal year, an amount in excess of 10 percent of the amount awarded to a grantee for that fiscal year (excluding Leveraging, REACH, and reallotted funds) will not be used by the grantee during that fiscal year, then the Secretary must notify the grantee and publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before July 6, 2016.
Comments may be submitted to: Jeannie L. Chaffin, Director, Office of Community Services, 330 C Street SW., 5th Floor, Mail Room 5425, Washington, DC 20201.
Lauren Christopher, Director, Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services, 330 C Street SW.,
It has been determined that approximately $1,230,022 in LIHEAP funds may be available for reallotment during FY 2016. This determination is based on FY 2015 Carryover and Reallotment Reports that showed that seven grantees reported reallotment funds (Tennessee, Puerto Rico, Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Passmaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and The Klamath Tribes). Grantees submitted the FY 2015 Carryover and Reallotment Reports to the Office of Community Services (OCS), as required by regulations applicable to LIHEAP at 45 CFR 96.82. This amount, however, may increase because, as of April 1, 2016, the report for 68 grantees remains pending.
The statute allows grantees who have funds unobligated at the end of the federal fiscal year for which they are awarded to request that they be allowed to carry over up to 10 percent of their allotments to the next federal fiscal year. Funds in excess of this amount must be returned to HHS and are subject to reallotment under section 2607(b)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1)). The amount described in this notice was reported as unobligated FY 2015 funds in excess of the amount that these grantees could carry over to FY 2016.
OCS contacted each of the grantees to confirm that the FY 2015 funds indicated in the chart may be reallotted. In accordance with section 2607(b)(3) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(3)), comments will be accepted for a period of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice.
After considering any comments submitted, the Chief Executive Officers of LIHEAP grantees will be notified of the final reallotment amount. This decision will be published in the
If funds are reallotted, they will be allocated in accordance with section 2604 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8623) and must be treated by LIHEAP grantees receiving them as an amount appropriated for FY 2016. As FY 2016 funds, they will be subject to all requirements of the Act, including section 2607(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2)), which requires that a grantee obligate at least 90 percent of its total block grant allocation for a fiscal year by the end of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, that is, by September 30, 2016.
42 U.S.C. 8626.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Florine Purdie, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6366, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
In the
On page 61426, in table 1, the entries for NDAs 016096 and 016097 are removed.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 5, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under section 361 of the Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 264), FDA issued regulations under part 1270 (21 CFR part 1270) to prevent the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, through the use of human tissue for transplantation. The regulations provide for inspection by FDA of persons and tissue establishments engaged in the recovery, screening, testing, processing, storage, or distribution of human tissue. These facilities are required to meet provisions intended to ensure appropriate screening and testing of human tissue donors and to ensure that records are kept documenting that the appropriate screening and testing have been completed.
Section 1270.31(a) through (d) requires written procedures to be prepared and followed for the following steps: (1) All significant steps in the infectious disease testing process under § 1270.21; (2) all significant steps for obtaining, reviewing, and assessing the relevant medical records of the donor as prescribed in § 1270.21; (3) designating and identifying quarantined tissue; and (4) for prevention of infectious disease contamination or cross-contamination by tissue during processing. Sections 1270.31(a) and (b) also requires recording and justification of any deviation from the written procedures. Section 1270.33(a) requires records to be maintained concurrently with the performance of each significant step required in the performance of infectious disease screening and testing of human tissue donors. Section 1270.33(f) requires records to be retained regarding the determination of the suitability of the donors and of the records required under § 1270.21. Section 1270.33(h) requires all records to be retained for at least 10 years beyond the date of transplantation if
Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers of human tissue intended for transplantation. Based on information from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER's) database system, FDA estimates that there are approximately 383 tissue establishments of which 262 are conventional tissue banks and 121 are eye tissue banks. Based on information provided by industry, there are an estimated total of 2,141,960 conventional tissue products and 130,987 eye tissue products distributed per year with an average of 25 percent of the tissue discarded due to unsuitability for transplant. In addition, there are an estimated 29,799 deceased donors of conventional tissue and 70,027 deceased donors of eye tissue each year.
Accredited members of the American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB) and Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) adhere to standards of those organizations that are comparable to the recordkeeping requirements in part 1270. Based on information provided by CBER's database system, 90 percent of the conventional tissue banks are members of AATB (262 × 90% = 236), and 95 percent of eye tissue banks are members of EBAA (121 × 95% = 115). Therefore, recordkeeping by these 351 establishments (236 + 115 = 351) is excluded from the burden estimates as usual and customary business activities (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). The recordkeeping burden, thus, is estimated for the remaining 32 establishments, which is 8.36 percent of all establishments (383 − 351 = 32, or 32/383 = 8.36%).
FDA assumes that all current tissue establishments have developed written procedures in compliance with part 1270. Therefore, their information collection burden is for the general review and update of written procedures estimated to take an annual average of 24 hours, and for the recording and justifying of any deviations from the written procedures under § 1270.31(a) and (b), estimated to take an annual average of 1 hour. The information collection burden for maintaining records concurrently with the performance of each significant screening and testing step and for retaining records for 10 years under § 1270.33(a), (f), and (h) include documenting the results and interpretation of all required infectious disease tests and results and the identity and relevant medical records of the donor required under § 1270.35(a) and (b). Therefore, the burden under these provisions is calculated together in table 1 of this document. The recordkeeping estimates for the number of total annual records and hours per record are based on information provided by industry and FDA experience.
FDA estimates the burden of this information collection as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363,
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
Under § 314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.
FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the following table are no longer being marketed.
FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed in this document in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs and ANDAs listed in this document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to those NDAs and ANDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice entitled “Labeling for Biosimilar Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability” that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period for the notice that published on April 4, 2016 (81 FR 19194) by an additional 60 days. Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to permit the Agency to consider your comments before issuing the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 2, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1042; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
In the
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,017.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Department of Homeland Security
Committee management; request for applicants for appointment to the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is requesting qualified individuals who are interested in serving on the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council (HSAAC) to apply for appointment as identified in this notice. Under the Secretary's authority in title 6, U.S.C., sec. 451, the Council is a discretionary committee established in accordance with and operates under the provisions of the
The Department seeks to appoint individuals to eight (8) vacant positions on the Council, including three (3) Representative members and five (5) Special Government Employee (SGE) members. If other positions are vacated during the application process, candidates may be selected from the pool of applicants to fill the vacated positions.
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST June 17, 2016.
The preferred method of submission is via email. However, applications may also be submitted by fax or mail. Please only submit by ONE of the following methods:
•
•
•
Lindsay Burton, Office of Academic Engagement/Mailstop 0440; Department of Homeland Security; 245 Murray Lane SW; Washington, DC 20528-0440, email:
The HSAAC is an advisory committee established to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary and senior leadership on matters relating to student and recent graduate recruitment; international students; academic research; campus and community resiliency, security and preparedness; faculty exchanges; and cybersecurity. The duties of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
The Department is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the Council to apply for appointment. Individuals selected for appointment will serve as either a SGE or Representative member. Specific vacancies by membership type include the following:
• Representative Members: Three (3) vacancies for members representing the specific viewpoints of their respective academic institution or organization:
○ One (1) Representative from a women's college or university, or a representative organization of these institutions;
○ One (1) Representative from a DHS Center of Excellence; and
○ One (1) Representative from a college, university or academic association with countering violent extremism focused programs or research initiatives.
• SGEs/Non-representative Members: Five (5) vacancies for SGEs that will be selected based on their area of expertise as aligned to the HSAAC focus areas: Academic research and faculty exchange; campus resilience; cybersecurity; homeland security academic programs; international students; and student and recent graduate recruitment.
More information about member composition can be found in the HSAAC Charter:
If you are interested and qualified, please apply for consideration of appointment by submitting an application package to the Office of Academic Engagement (OAE) as listed in the
• Cover letter, addressed to the Office of Academic Engagement, that indicates why you are interested in serving on the Council and includes the following information: The position (
• Resume or Curriculum Vitae (CV).
Incomplete applications will not be considered. Applicants that do not meet the following criteria will not be considered: (1) Represent an academic institution or organization, and (2) serve in the highest role in that organization (
The appointment shall be for a term ranging from two (2) to four (4) years. Individuals selected for appointment as SGEs, defined in sec. 202(a) of title 18, U.S.C., will be required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450). Individuals selected for appointment as Representative Members are selected to represent the viewpoint of their respective academic institution or organization and are not SGEs.
The HSAAC is expected to meet two (2) times each year. Additional meetings may be held with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem, and all travel for HSAAC business must be approved in advance by the DFO. HSAAC meetings are open to the public, unless a determination is made by the appropriate DHS official in accordance with DHS policy and directives, that the meeting should be closed in accordance with title 5, U.S.C., subsec. (c) of sec. 552b. Additionally, members are asked to serve on any number of HSAAC Subcommittees, which meet at least once a year via teleconference.
DHS does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions. Current DHS employees, contractors and potential contractors will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists may apply for positions designated as Representative appointments but are not eligible for positions that are designated as SGE appointments.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plat of survey of the following described land are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, ID, in 30 days from the date of this publication.
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 15 and 17, T. 34 N., R. 4 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1425, was accepted May 13, 2016.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 3 and 10, T. 8 N., R. 3 W., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1430, was accepted May 25, 2016.
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet certain administrative and management purposes. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, west boundary, and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 19, 21, and 31, T. 37 N., R. 3 W., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1426, was accepted May 17, 2016.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 25 and 34, T. 37 N., R. 4 W., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1434, was accepted May 25, 2016.
These surveys were executed at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet certain administrative and management purposes. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east boundary, subdivisional lines, subdivision of section 11, and the original 1885 meanders of Grays Lake in sections 11, 14, and 23, and the subdivision of sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 23, and certain metes-and-bounds surveys in sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 23, T. 4 S., R. 43 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1323, was accepted May 13, 2016.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment.
Stanley G. French, (208) 373-3981 Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, 83709-1657. Persons who use a telecommunitcations device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Idaho State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration to the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
Michael O. Harmening, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502-7147, phone: 775-861-6490. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
1. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 16, 2016.
The plat, in 3 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of the south boundary, a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, in Township 14 South, Range 69 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 910, was accepted May 12, 2015. This survey was executed at the request of Clark County to identify certain boundaries, as shown on the request for cadastral survey, dated July 5, 2011.
2. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 3, 2016:
The plat, in 10 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and portions of certain mineral surveys, the subdivision of sections 5 and 6, and metes-and-bounds surveys of certain Gold Hill Townsite lots, Township 16 North, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, under Group No. 937, was accepted April 29, 2016. This survey represented on these plats was executed to determine the official boundaries of the parcel called “Lot 51” that is the subject of a Color of Title Act Class I claim by Northern Comstock, LLC.
The surveys listed above are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These records have been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Taos Field Office, Taos, New Mexico intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Taos Field Office and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the RMP amendment with an associated EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until July 6, 2016 In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period. The date(s) and locations(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the Rimrock Rose Ranch Donation Acceptance EA and RMP amendment by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
• Email:
• Fax: 575-758-1620.
• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Brad Higdon, 226 Cruz Alta Road, Taos NM 87571.
Brad Higdon, Planning and Environmental Specialist, telephone 575-751-4725; address 226 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, New Mexico 87571; email
This document provides notice that the BLM Taos Field Office, New Mexico, intends to prepare an RMP amendment with an associated EA for the Taos Field Office planning area, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The planning area is located within San Miguel County, New Mexico, and encompasses approximately 19,780 acres of public land. This RMP amendment proposes to make two allotments unavailable for livestock grazing. This action is part of a larger proposal by the BLM to accept a donation of approximately 3,576 acres
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
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. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the draft RMP amendment/draft EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns. The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, riparian resources, wilderness, outdoor recreation, archaeology, visual resources, and realty.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) is seeking comments on the renewal of information collections for the following activities: (i) Compliance and enforcement actions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as authorized by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 3141-0001; (ii) approval of tribal ordinances, and background investigation and issuance of licenses as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0003; (iii) National Environmental Policy Act submissions as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0006; and (iv) issuance to tribes of certificates of self-regulation for Class II gaming as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0008. These information collections all expire on October 31, 2016.
Submit comments on or before August 5, 2016.
Comments can be mailed, faxed, or emailed to the attention of: Tim Osumi, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW., MS 1621, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may be faxed to (202) 632-7066 and may be sent electronically to
Tim Osumi at (202) 632-7054; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).
You are invited to comment on these collections concerning: (i) Whether the collections of information are 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 estimates of the burdens (including the hours and cost) of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) ways to minimize the burdens of the information collections on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
It is the Commission's policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Commission regulations also require tribes to perform background investigations and issue licenses for PMOs and key employees using certain information provided by applicants, such as names, addresses, previous employment records, previous relationships with either Indian tribes or the gaming industry, licensing related to those relationships, any convictions, and any other information that a tribe feels is relevant to the employment of the individuals being investigated. Tribes are then required to keep complete application files. Tribes are also required to create and keep investigative reports, and to submit to the Commission notices of results (licensing eligibility determinations) on PMOs and key employees. Tribes must notify the Commission if they issue or do not issue licenses to PMOs and key employees, and if they revoke said licenses. The Commission uses this information to review the eligibility and suitability determinations that tribes make and advises them if it disagrees with any particular determination. These information collections are mandatory and allow the Commission to carry out its statutory duties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Amended Notice of Intent.
The National Park Service (NPS) is amending its July 10, 2015, Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and Management Plan for Moose, Wolves, and Vegetation for Isle Royale National Park, Michigan (Isle Royale). The NPS is revising the scope of the EIS to focus on the question of whether to bring wolves to Isle Royale in the near term, and if so, how to do so. This amended NOI describes a range of alternatives for bringing wolves to the Island.
42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 43 CFR part 46.
The public scoping comment period will conclude 30 days following the date this NOI is published in the
Information, including a copy of the new public scoping brochure, is available for public review online at
Superintendent Phyllis Green, Isle Royale National Park, ISRO Wolves, 800 East Lakeshore Drive, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1896, or by telephone at (906) 482-0984.
Although wolves have not always been part of the Isle Royale ecosystem, they have been present for more than 65 years, and have played a key role in the ecosystem, affecting the moose population and other species during that time. The average wolf population on the island over the past 65 years has been about 22, but there have been as many as 50 wolves on the Island and as few as three. Over the past five years the population has declined steeply, which has given rise to the need to determine whether the NPS should bring additional wolves to the island. There were three wolves documented on the Island as of March 2015 and only two wolves have been confirmed as of February 2016. At this time, natural recovery of the population is unlikely. The potential absence of wolves raises concerns about possible effects to Isle Royale's current ecosystem, including effects to both the moose population and Isle Royale's forest/vegetation communities.
The NPS published a NOI to prepare an EIS and Management Plan for Moose, Wolves, and Vegetation for Isle Royale National Park on July 10, 2015, (80 FR 39796), and held scoping meetings July 27-30, 2015. However, based on the public comments we received and additional internal deliberations, the NPS has determined that it will revise and narrow the scope of this EIS to focus on the question of whether to bring wolves to Isle Royale in the near term, and if so, how to do so.
The revised purpose of the plan is to determine whether and how to bring wolves to Isle Royale to function as the apex predator in the near term within a changing and dynamic island ecosystem. The NPS will evaluate alternative approaches for bringing wolves to Isle Royale, as well as the alternative of not bringing wolves to Isle Royale (the no-action alternative), which remains a viable option. Following this evaluation and additional input from you on the EIS, an alternative will be selected for implementation and documented in a record of decision. Based on the revised purpose statement, the NPS is now considering the following alternatives.
Under Alternative A, the no-action alternative, the NPS would not intervene and would continue current management. Wolves may come and go through natural migration, although the current population of wolves may die out. Under Alternative B, the NPS would bring wolves to Isle Royale as a one-time event within a defined period of time (
Given the revised scope of the EIS, actions to manage moose, such as culling or translocation of moose, as well as actions to manage vegetation, such as fire, direct restoration, or other tools, will not be considered in this EIS. After a decision is made regarding whether and how to bring wolves to Isle Royale, the NPS will monitor conditions on the island, and will initiate additional planning processes to address other aspects of the island ecosystem, such as the moose population and forest community, if such planning processes are deemed necessary.
All comments received during the scoping period that was announced in the July 2015 NOI are available online at
The preferred method for submitting comments is on the NPS PEPC Web site at
Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or any other way than those specified above. Bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice of an extension.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is inviting comments on a collection of information requests that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the paperwork requirements in the regulations under title 30,
Submit written comments on or before August 5, 2016.
You may submit comments on this ICR to ONRR by using one of the following three methods (please reference “ICR 1012-0005” in your comments):
1. Electronically go to
2. Email comments to Mr. Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, at
3. Hand-carry or mail comments, using an overnight courier service, to ONRR. Our courier address is Building 85, Room A-614, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225.
For any questions, contact Mr. Luis Aguilar, telephone (303) 231-3418, or email at
The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary's responsibility, according to various laws, is to manage mineral resource production from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected under those laws. We have posted those laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS at
The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the minerals revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands.
You can find the information collections covered in this ICR at 30 CFR parts:
• 1202, subparts C and D, which pertain to Federal oil and gas royalties.
• 1204, subpart C, which pertains to accounting and auditing relief for marginal properties.
• 1206, subparts C and D, which pertain to Federal oil and gas product valuation.
When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The mineral lease laws require the lessee, or his designee, to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the
ONRR uses the information that we collect in this ICR to ensure that lessees accurately value and appropriately pay royalties on oil and gas produced from Federal onshore and offshore leases. Please refer to the chart for all reporting requirements and associated burden hours. All data submitted is subject to subsequent audit and adjustment.
The valuation regulations at 30 CFR part 1206, subparts C and D, mandate that companies collect and submit information used to value their Federal oil and gas, including (1) transportation and processing allowances and (2) regulatory allowance limit information. Companies report certain data on form ONRR-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance. The information that we request is the minimum necessary to carry out our mission and places the least possible burden on respondents. If ONRR does not collect this information, both Federal and State governments may incur a loss of royalties.
Transportation and Processing Regulatory Allowance Limits: Lessees may deduct actual costs of transportation and processing from Federal royalties. The lessees report these allowances on form ONRR-2014. For oil and gas, regulations establish the allowable limit on transportation allowance deductions at 50 percent of the value of the oil or gas. For gas only, regulations establish the allowable limit on processing allowance deductions at 66
Request to Exceed Regulatory Allowance Limitation, form ONRR-4393: Lessees may request to exceed regulatory limitations. Upon proper application from the lessee, ONRR may approve oil or gas transportation allowance in excess of 50 percent or gas processing allowance in excess of 66
In 2004, we amended our regulations to comply with section 7 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996. These regulations provide guidance for lessees and designees seeking accounting and auditing relief for qualifying Federal marginal properties. Under the regulations, both ONRR and the State concerned must approve any relief granted for a marginal property.
We will request OMB approval to continue to collect, from companies, lessees, and designees, information used (1) to value their Federal oil and gas, including (a) transportation and processing allowances and (b) regulatory allowance limit information and (2) to request accounting and auditing relief approval for qualifying Federal marginal properties. If ONRR does not collect this information, this would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments. ONRR protects the proprietary information that we receive, and we do not collect items of a sensitive nature.
ONRR requires lessees to respond to information collections relating to valuation requirements.
We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered as usual and customary. We display the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph in the following chart:
This 60-day
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “* * * provide 60-day notice in the
The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods that you use to estimate (1) major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, (2) expected useful life of capital equipment, (3) discount rate(s), and (4) the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software that you purchase to prepare for collecting information and monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment, and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased (i) before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you, without charge, upon request. We also will post the ICR at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).
Withdrawal.
On April 28, 2016, ONRR published (at 81 FR 25419) a notice of the due date for industry to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices, titled “Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated with an Index Zone.” Unfortunately, due to an incorrect date in said notice, it is necessary to withdraw the notice and re-publish a corrected version. This notice withdraws the April 28, 2016, notice in question.
For questions on technical issues, contact Mr. Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, ONRR, telephone (303) 231-3418, or email
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM or “the Bureau”), Interior.
Proposed Sale Notice for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New York.
This document is the Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) for the sale of one commercial wind energy lease on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore New York, pursuant to 30 CFR 585.216. BOEM proposes to offer Lease OCS-A 0512 for sale using an ascending bidding auction format. In this PSN, you will find information pertaining to the area available for leasing, proposed lease provisions and conditions, auction details, the lease form, criteria for evaluating competing bids, award procedures, appeal procedures, and lease execution. BOEM invites public comment during a 60-day comment period following publication of this notice. The issuance of a lease resulting from this proposed sale would not constitute an approval of project-specific plans to develop offshore wind energy resources. Such plans, expected to be submitted by the auction winner, will be subject to subsequent environmental and technical reviews prior to a decision to proceed with development.
Comments should be submitted electronically or postmarked no later than August 5, 2016. All comments received or postmarked during the comment period will be made available to the public and considered prior to publication of the Final Sale Notice (FSN).
All entities interested in participating in the lease sale who have not previously been qualified by BOEM to participate in this lease sale must submit the required qualification materials by the end of the 60-day comment period for this notice. All qualification materials must be postmarked no later than August 5, 2016. Entities that have already been qualified to participate in this lease sale are not required to take any additional action to affirm their interest.
Potential auction participants, Federal, state, and local government agencies, tribal governments, and other interested parties are requested to submit their written comments on the PSN in one of the following ways:
1.
2.
3.
Erin C. Trager, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP, Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1320 or
This PSN is published pursuant to subsection 8(p) of the OCS Lands Act (43
The area described for leasing in this PSN is the same as the area described in the New York Call for Information and Nominations (79 FR 30645) and announced as the New York Wind Energy Area (WEA) on March 16, 2016. This Area Identification (Area ID) announcement is available at:
On May 28, 2014, BOEM published a Call for Information and Nominations (Call) to seek additional nominations from companies interested in commercial wind energy leases within the Call Area offshore New York. BOEM also sought public input on the potential for wind development in the Call Area, including comments on site conditions, resources, and existing uses of the area that would be relevant to BOEM's wind energy development authorization process. In response to the Call, BOEM received three expressions of interest and 27 comment submissions, links to which are available at
On May 28, 2014, BOEM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for commercial wind lease issuance and approval of site assessment activities on the Atlantic OCS offshore New York with a 45-day public comment period (79 FR 30643). In response to the NOI, BOEM received 32 comment submissions, a link to which is available at
Concurrent with the publication of this notice, BOEM is publishing the EA for public comment. The EA is available at:
For the issuance of a commercial lease, BOEM considers the environmental consequences of associated site characterization activities (
BOEM will complete consultations for lease issuance under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) to inform the New York lease sale prior to publishing the FSN. BOEM will initiate consultations with the States of New York and New Jersey under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) concurrent with the publication of this PSN.
BOEM has determined that the issuance of a commercial lease and subsequent approval, approval with modification, or disapproval of a lessee's plans constitute undertakings subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. BOEM is currently in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officers of New York and New Jersey, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Shinnecock Indian Nation, and the National Park Service to draft and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to fulfill the bureau's obligations under Section 106 for renewable energy activities offshore New Jersey and New York. This PA will provide for consultation to continue throughout BOEM's staged decision-making process, and will establish the process to determine and document the area of potential effects for each undertaking; identify historic properties within the area of potential effects; assess potential adverse effects; and avoid, reduce, or mitigate any such effects through the process set forth in the agreement.
As the effort to execute the PA is ongoing and BOEM has not yet initiated consultation for the issuance of a commercial lease, the draft lease stipulations included in Addendum “C” of the proposed lease (OCS-A 0512) may be amended or revised and/or additional stipulations may be included as a result of this consultation. BOEM will continue to consult with affected tribes government to government.
Once BOEM has completed the EA and associated consultations, and if the EA concludes that the proposed action will not cause significant environmental impacts, BOEM will publish a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and may proceed with a FSN. If BOEM concludes that the proposed action would cause significant environmental impacts to the human environment, then BOEM will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before proceeding with a FSN. If a lease is issued, BOEM will prepare additional environmental reviews upon receipt of the lessee's SAP and Construction and Operations Plan (COP).
that it may take a number of weeks for BOEM to assess a potential bidder's legal, technical, and financial qualifications. BOEM advises potential bidders who plan to participate in a sale to establish their qualifications promptly. It is not uncommon for BOEM to request additional materials establishing qualifications following an initial review of the qualifications package. BOEM cannot determine a potential bidder to be qualified without a complete qualification package. Potential bidders, whom BOEM has not determined to be qualified before the FSN is published, will not be allowed to participate in the sale.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A large-scale map of the area, showing boundaries of the area with numbered blocks, is available from BOEM upon request at the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP, Sterling, Virginia 20166, Phone: (703) 787-1300, Fax: (703) 787-1708.
During the Area ID process, BOEM analyzed three potential concerns associated with development of the New York WEA: (1) Navigational safety, (2) commercial fishing, and (3) visual impacts to historic properties. Although BOEM did not remove any areas from
The New York proposed lease area has been delineated to accommodate a setback of 1 nautical mile (nmi) from the adjacent Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs) for the Port of New York and New Jersey. This setback is consistent with BOEM's delineation of other lease areas that are in close proximity to TSSs (
In September 2015, BOEM received additional input from USCG recommending a larger setback of 2 nmi from the TSSs. USCG's correspondence to BOEM, which explains the recommendation, is available on BOEM's Web site at
BOEM received fishery-related comments in response to the RFI, Call, and NOI from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); and the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), a group representing members of the sea scallop fishery. BOEM also received comments from commercial squid fishery operators during BOEM's November 2015 fisheries workshops. A meeting summary of BOEM's November 2015 fisheries workshops and comments associated with these workshops are available on BOEM's Web site at
Through a joint study with NMFS, BOEM has also gathered information regarding the use of the lease area as a fishery. This data, specific to the proposed New York lease area, is available on BOEM's Web site at
In addition, between 2012 and 2016, BOEM collaborated with numerous stakeholders in the fishing and offshore wind industries to develop best management practices (BMPs) in furtherance of its goal of eliminating or minimizing potential multiple use conflicts between offshore renewable energy developers and the fishing industry. As a result of this effort, BOEM recommends that lessees facilitate cooperation with the fishing industry by utilizing a fisheries liaison and fisheries representative during the development of their plans. BOEM has issued guidance to lessees for providing information on fisheries social and economic conditions for renewable energy development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf:
During the summer and fall of 2015, OREP conducted stakeholder outreach with the NPS, NY SHPO, and the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office. OREP also completed a study entitled, “Renewable Energy Viewshed Analysis and Visualization Simulation for the New York Outer Continental Shelf Call Area” to assist in this outreach effort and to provide scientific and technical information about visual impacts to inform the Area ID decision. Results from this study are available under the header “Visual Simulations” at the following link:
The lease includes the following seven attachments:
• Addendum “A” (Description of Leased Area and Lease Activities);
• Addendum “B” (Lease Term and Financial Schedule);
• Addendum “C” (Lease Specific Terms, Conditions, and Stipulations);
• Addendum “D” (Project Easement);
• Addendum “E” (Rent Schedule post COP approval);
• Appendix A to Addendum “C”: (Incident Report: Protected Species Injury or Mortality); and
• Appendix B to Addendum “C”: (Required Data Elements for Protected Species Observer Reports).
BOEM is soliciting comments on the provisions of Addendum “C” that require the submission of SAP and COP survey plans. Specifically, BOEM is interested in whether potential lessees and other stakeholders find the timeframes associated with those requirements to be reasonable, and whether those provisions could be written in a manner that better describes the realities associated with offshore wind survey efforts (
For example, an 81,130 acre lease (the size of the entire proposed New York lease area) will have a rent payment of $243,390 per year if no portion of the leased area is authorized for commercial operations. If 300 megawatts (MW) of a project's nameplate capacity is operating (or authorized for operation), and the approved COP specifies a maximum project size of 500 MW, the rent payment will be $97,356. This payment is based on the 200 MW of nameplate capacity BOEM has not yet authorized for commercial operations. For the above example, this would be calculated as follows: 200MW/500MW × ($3/acre × 81,130 acres) = $97,356.
If the lessee submits an application for relinquishment of a portion of its lease area within the first 45 calendar days following the date that the lease is received by the lessee for execution, and BOEM approves that application, no rent payment will be due on that relinquished portion of the lease area. Later relinquishments of any portion of the lease area will reduce the lessee's rent payments starting in the year following BOEM's approval of the relinquishment.
The lessee also must pay rent for any project easement associated with the lease, commencing on the date that BOEM approves the COP (or modification thereof) that describes the project easement. Annual rent for a project easement that is 200 feet wide and centered on the transmission cable is $70 per statute mile. For any additional acreage required, the lessee must also pay the greater of $5 per acre per year or $450 per year.
The subsequent annual operating fee payments are calculated by multiplying the operating fee rate by the imputed wholesale market value of the projected annual electric power production for the project. For the purposes of this calculation, the imputed market value is the product of the project's annual nameplate capacity, the total number of hours in the year (8,760), the capacity factor, and the annual average price of electricity derived from a historical regional wholesale power price index. For example, the annual operating fee for a 100 MW wind facility operating at a 40% capacity (
The capacity factor is expressed as a decimal between zero and one, and represents the share of anticipated generation of the wind facility that is delivered to the interconnection grid (
BOEM proposes to use the NYC Zone J power price as the price in its operating fee formula due to its geographic proximity to the proposed lease area. BOEM is soliciting further comments on the merits of other electric power prices, including Long Island Zone K, that may be used in lieu of or in combination with the current proposed power price. In particular, BOEM would like to know if and why other electric power prices may be preferred over NYC Zone J.
BOEM will base the amount of all SAP, COP, and decommissioning financial assurance requirements on cost estimates for meeting all accrued lease obligations at the respective stages of development. The required amount of supplemental and decommissioning financial assurance will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The financial terms described above can be found in Addendum “B” of the proposed lease, which BOEM has made available with this notice on its Web site at:
Following the auction, bid deposits will be applied against bonus bids or other obligations owed to BOEM. If the bid deposit exceeds a bidder's total financial obligation, the balance of the bid deposit will be refunded to the bidder. BOEM will refund bid deposits to non-winners.
BOEM will not consider BFFs submitted by qualified bidders for previous lease sales to satisfy the requirements of the proposed New York lease sale. BOEM will also only consider BFFs submitted after the deadline if BOEM determines that the failure to timely submit the BFF was caused by events beyond the bidder's control. BOEM will only accept an original, executed paper copy of the BFF. The BFF must be executed by an authorized representative who has been identified in the qualifications package on file with BOEM as authorized to bind the company.
As authorized under 30 CFR 585.220(a)(2) and 585.221(a)(1), BOEM intends to conduct the proposed lease sale using an ascending format with cash as the bid variable. Using an online bidding system to host the auction, BOEM sets an initial asking price for Lease OCS-A 0512 and increases that price incrementally based on the number of active bidders in each round until no more than one active bidder remains in the auction. A bid submitted at the full asking price for the lease in a particular round is referred to as a live bid. During each round, active bidders may: (1) Submit a live bid indicating that they are interested in acquiring the lease at the current round's stated asking price, (2) submit an exit bid (see below for discussion of exit bids), or (3) exit the auction. All bids are considering binding until BOEM has determined the winning bid.
A bidder remains active in the auction as long as it continues to meet BOEM's asking price in each round. If more than one live bid is received in a round, BOEM increases the asking price incrementally and conducts another auction round. BOEM plans to raise the asking price following any round in which two or more bidders submitted live bids. The auction concludes at the end of the round in which the number of live bids received falls to one or zero.
Asking price increments are in BOEM's sole discretion. They will be determined round-by-round, based on a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to, the expected time needed to conduct the auction and the number of rounds that have already occurred. BOEM reserves the right to increase or decrease bidding increments as necessary.
Between rounds, BOEM will disclose to all bidders eligible to bid in the next round: (1) The number of live bids in the previous round of the auction (
If a bidder is not willing to meet the asking price in the upcoming round, the bidder may submit an exit bid and then exit the auction. Bidders exiting the auction are allowed to submit one exit bid at an offer price greater than the
BOEM will determine the provisionally winning bidder to be the bidder with the highest bid, whether the bid was a live bid or an exit bid. If there is a tie, BOEM will resolve the tie by randomized means. The provisional winner may be disqualified if it is subsequently found to have violated auction rules or otherwise engaged in conduct detrimental to the integrity of the competitive auction.
The auction winner for the proposed lease sale will have 10 business days from receiving the lease copies in which to post financial assurance, pay any outstanding balance of its bonus bid, and sign and return three copies of the lease. BOEM reserves the right to not issue the lease to the provisionally winning bidder if that bidder fails to timely sign and pay for the lease or otherwise fails to comply with applicable regulations or terms of the FSN. In that case, that bidder will forfeit its bid deposit. BOEM may consider failure of a bidder to timely pay the full amount due an indication that the bidder is no longer financially qualified to participate in other lease sales under BOEM's regulations at 30 CFR 585.106 and 585.107. If a winning bidder does not sign the lease pursuant to the proposed lease sale, BOEM reserves the right to identify the next best bid submitted during the proposed lease sale and offer the lease pursuant to this next highest bid.
For the proposed online auction, BOEM will require two-factor authentication. Prior to the auction, the Auction Manager will send several bidder authentication packages to the bidders shortly after BOEM has processed the BFFs. One package will contain digital authentication tokens for each authorized individual allowing access to the auction Web site. The tokens will be mailed to the Primary Point of Contact indicated on the BFF. This individual is responsible for distributing the tokens to the individuals authorized to bid for that company.
The second package contains login credentials for authorized bidders. The login credentials will be mailed to the address provided in the BFF for each authorized individual. Bidders can confirm these addresses by calling 703-787-1320. This package will contain user login information and instructions for accessing the Auction System Technical Supplement and Alternative Bidding Form. The login information, along with the tokens, will be tested during the Mock Auction.
The FSN will provide specific information regarding when bidders can enter the auction system and when the proposed auction will start. Once bidders have logged in they should review the auction schedule, which lists the start, end, and recess times of each round in the auction. Each round is structured as follows:
• Round bidding begins;
• Bidders enter their bids;
• Round bidding ends and the recess begins;
• During the recess, the number of live bids received in the previous round and the next round's asking price are posted;
• Bidders review the previous round results and prepare their next round bids (or exit bids, as applicable);
• Next round bidding begins.
The first round will last about 30 minutes, though subsequent rounds may be shorter. Recesses are anticipated to last approximately 10 minutes. The descriptions of the auction schedule and asking price increments included in the PSN and FSN are tentative. Bidders should consult the auction schedule on the bidding Web site just before and during the auction for updated times. BOEM anticipates the auction will last one or two business days, but bidders are advised to prepare to continue bidding for additional business days as necessary to resolve the auction.
BOEM and the auction contractors will use the auction platform messaging service to keep bidders informed on issues of interest during the proposed auction. BOEM will use the messaging system for auction schedule changes and other updates during the auction.
Bidders may place bids at any time during the round. At the top of the bidding page, a countdown clock will show how much time remains in the round. Bidders have until the scheduled ending time to place bids. Bidders should bid according to the procedures described in both the FSN and the Auction System Technical Supplement. No information about bidding during the round is available until the round has closed and results have been posted, so there is no tactical advantage to placing bids early or late in the round.
The timing of the auction will be elaborated on and clarified in the Auction System Technical Supplement available on BOEM's Web site at:
Alternate Bidding Procedures enable a bidder who is having difficulties accessing the Internet to submit its bid via fax using an Alternate Bidding Form available on BOEM's Web site at:
In order to be authorized to use an Alternative Bidding Form, a bidder must call the help desk number listed in the Auction Manual
BOEM has received a request to recognize a non-monetary credit for any bidder who has an executed power purchase agreement (PPA) term sheet with a potential power purchaser involving offshore wind energy generated from the proposed New York lease area. While a PPA term sheet is not typically a fully binding contract and may differ in that respect from other non-monetary factors that BOEM has credited to date, BOEM is considering whether to add this element to the auction in a fashion similar to prior BOEM offshore wind lease sales (
In particular, BOEM would like to know what key commercial terms should be included in a qualifying PPA term sheet to qualify for a credit; whether BOEM should only provide a credit for PPA term sheets that are executed with specific types of entities (
Anti-competitive practices may include, but are not limited to:
• An express or tacit agreement among bidders to not bid in an auction, or to bid at a particular price;
• An agreement among bidders not to bid against each other; and
• Other agreements among bidders that have the potential to affect the final auction price.
BOEM will decline to award the lease if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, determines that doing so would be inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
For more information on whether specific communications or agreements could constitute a violation of Federal antitrust law, please see
1. Sign the lease on the bidder's behalf;
2. File financial assurance, as required under 30 CFR 585.515-537; and
3. Pay by electronic funds transfer (EFT) the balance (if any) of the bonus bid (winning bid less the bid deposit). BOEM requires bidders to use EFT procedures (not
BOEM will not execute a lease until the three requirements above have been satisfied, BOEM has accepted the provisionally winning bidder's financial assurance pursuant to 30 CFR 585.515, and BOEM has processed the provisionally winning bidder's payment.
If BOEM determines the delay was caused by events beyond the provisional winning bidder's control, BOEM may extend the ten business day deadline for executing the lease on the bidder's behalf, filing the required financial assurance, and/or paying the balance of the bonus bid.
If the provisionally winning bidder does not meet these requirements or otherwise fails to comply with applicable regulations or the terms of the FSN, BOEM reserves the right to not issue the lease to that bidder. In such a case, the provisionally winning bidder will forfeit its bid deposit.
Within 45 days of the date that the provisionally winning bidder receives copies of the lease, it must pay the first year's rent using the
(a) If BOEM rejects your bid, BOEM will provide a written statement of the
(b) You will then be able to ask the BOEM Director for reconsideration, in writing, within 15 business days of bid rejection, under 30 CFR 585.118(c)(1). We will send you a written response either affirming or reversing the rejection.
The procedures for appealing final decisions with respect to lease sales are described in 30 CFR 585.118(c).
BOEM will not treat as confidential aggregate summaries of otherwise confidential information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential the legal title of the commenting entity (
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of availability.
BOEM is announcing the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for commercial wind lease issuance, site characterization activities (geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys), and site assessment activities (including the installation and operation of a meteorological tower and/or buoys) on the Atlantic OCS offshore New York. The EA considers the potential impacts of the proposed action and an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (excluding the area within two nautical miles of the traffic separation schemes, and no action). This Notice of Availability (NOA) also serves to announce the beginning of the public comment period on the EA. The EA and associated information are available on BOEM's Web site at
Should a lessee propose to construct a commercial wind facility through submission of a Construction and Operations Plan, BOEM would conduct a separate site- and project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, likely an Environmental Impact Statement, and would provide additional opportunities for public involvement pursuant to NEPA and the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
Comments on this EA will be accepted until July 6, 2016. See public meeting dates in the
Michelle Morin, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1340 or
1.
2. In written form, delivered by hand or by mail, enclosed in an envelope labeled “Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New York Environmental Assessment” and addressed to Program Manager, Office of Renewable Energy, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166. Comments must be received or postmarked no later than July 6, 2016.
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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• Monday June 20, 2016; Long Branch Middle School (Auditorium), 404 Indiana Avenue, Long Branch, New Jersey 07740; 6:00-8:00 p.m.
• Tuesday June 21, 2016; Hofstra University (MPR Room), 900 Fulton Avenue, Hempstead, New York 11549; 6:00-8:00 p.m.
• Wednesday, June 22, 2016; Westhampton Beach High School, 49 Lilac Road, Westhampton Beach, New York 11978; 6:00-8:00 p.m.
• Thursday, June 23, 2016; University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay Campus, Coastal Institute Building (Hazard Rooms A & B), 215 S Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882; 6:00-8:00 p.m.
This Notice of Availability (NOA) is published pursuant to the regulations (43 CFR 46.305) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007; telephone 303-445-2888.
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.
16. Clean Water Services and Tualatin Valley ID, Tualatin Project, Oregon: Long-term water service contract that provides for the District to allow Clean Water Services to beneficially use up to 6,000 acre-feet annually of stored water for water quality improvement.
The Mid-Pacific Region has no updates to report for this quarter.
15. La Paz County and Ehrenberg Improvement Association, BCP, Arizona: Review and approve a proposed partial assignment to the Association of 150 acre-feet per year of La Paz County's Arizona fourth priority water entitlement amount of 500 acre-feet per year and execute the associated amendments to La Paz County's and the Association's contracts. Contract executed on December 22, 2015.
17. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 790 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe during calendar year 2016. Contract executed on March 17, 2016.
18. Chandler Heights Citrus ID and Central Arizona Water Conservation District, CAP, Arizona: Execute a proposed assignment to Central Arizona Water Conservation District of Chandler
20. Mohave County Water Authority, BCP, Arizona: Amend Exhibit D to the Authority's Colorado River water delivery contract to update the list of subcontractors with the Authority. Contract executed on February 29, 2016.
26. Ephraim Irrigation Company, Sanpete Project, Utah: The Company proposes to enclose the Ephraim Tunnel with a 54-inch pipe. A supplemental O&M agreement will be necessary to obtain the authorization to modify Federal facilities.
27. Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, Eden Project, Wyoming: The District proposes to raise the level of Big Sandy Dam to shore up its water rights. A supplemental O&M agreement will be necessary to obtain the authorization to modify Federal facilities.
28. Uintah Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Project—Vernal Unit, Utah: Due to sloughing on the face of Steinaker Dam north of Vernal, Utah, a SOD fix authorized under the SOD Act of 1978 may be necessary to perform the various functions necessary to bring Steinaker Reservoir back to full capacity. This will require a repayment contract with the United States.
29. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project: Pursuant to legislation and Section 10602(h) of Pub. L. 111-11, project facilities may be used to treat and convey nonproject water. Before delivery of project water from the San Juan River, a need will exist for nonproject water to be delivered to the Navajo Nation. A carriage contract has been drafted and is currently under internal review (Reclamation) then will be negotiated with the Navajo Nation in a public setting.
30. Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Project, New Mexico: Water service agreement between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and the San Juan Basin Water Haulers Association for delivery of 200 acre-feet of M&I water from the Jicarilla's settlement water from the Navajo Reservoir Supply. This agreement will have a term of 5 years (2016-2020) and will replace the expired previous agreement which was in place for 10 years.
31. North Fork Water Conservancy District and Ragged Mountain Water Users Association, Paonia Project, Colorado. An existing contract for 2,000 acre-feet will expire on December 31, 2016. The parties have requested a 5-year contract that will begin when the existing contract expires. The new contract will be for up to 2,000 acre-feet of water with up to 200 acre-feet available for M&I uses.
14. South Cache Water Users Association, Hyrum Project, Utah: The Association desires to pipe approximately 2,100 linear feel of the Hyrum-Mendota Canal to combat seepage issues below Hyrum Dam. A supplemental O&M agreement is necessary for Reclamation to provide consent to the modification of the Federal facilities.
5. Uintah Water Conservancy District; Vernal Unit, CUP; Utah: Proposed carriage contract to both store up to 35,000 acre-feet of nonproject water in Steinaker Reservoir and carry nonproject water in the Steinaker Service and Feeder Canals. Contract executed on February 12, 2016.
21. Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado: Requested a water delivery contract for 33,519 acre-feet of M&I water; contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554). Contract executed on January 14, 2016.
39. South Chester County Water District; Lower Marias Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration to renew of long-term M&I water service contract No. 14-06-600-2022A.
40. Nathan D. and Kindra Young; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration to renew short-term M&I water service contract No. 129E670093.
41. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, Norman Project, Oklahoma: Consideration of a contract for a supply of water made possible when infrequent and otherwise unmanageable flood flows of short duration create a temporary supply of water.
22. Helena Valley ID; Helena Valley Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a contract to allow for delivery of up to 500 acre-feet of water for M&I purposes.
29. Larry TenBensel; Frenchman Cambridge, P-SMBP; Nebraska: Consideration of a long-term Warren Act contract. Contract executed on March 15, 2016.
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comment received on the proposed Final Judgment in
Copies of the comment and the United States' Response are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at
Pursuant to Sections 2(b)-(h) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), Plaintiff, the United States of America (“United States”) hereby files the single public comment received concerning the proposed Final Judgment in this case and the United States's response to the comment. After careful consideration of the submitted comment, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment (“PFJ”) provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint. The United States will move the Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comment and this Response have been published in the
On February 3, 2016, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by Defendant BBA Aviation plc (“Signature”) of Defendants Landmark U.S. Corp LLC and LM U.S. Member LLC (“Landmark”), announced on September 23, 2015, would be likely to substantially lessen competition in the provision of full-service fixed-based operator (“FBO”) services at six airports in the United States, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint further alleged that, as a result of the acquisition as originally proposed, prices for these services in the United States would likely have increased and customers would have received services of lower quality.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Hold Separate Order”); a Proposed Final Judgment (“PFJ”); and a Competitive Impact Statement (“CIS”) that explains how the PFJ is designed to remedy the likely anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition. As required by the Tunney Act, the United States published the PFJ and CIS in the
The Tunney Act requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
Under the APPA, a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the Complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether the enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties.
In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, “the court `must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies.'”
Courts “may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.”
In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act,
The United States received one public comment from the City of Dallas (“Dallas”). Though the comment was submitted after the deadline for comments had passed, the United States has nevertheless issued a full response. Dallas submitted the comment to express concern about the possible anticompetitive effects of Signature's acquisition of Landmark at Love Field Airport (“Love Field”), which Dallas operates. Combined, Signature and Landmark have 54 percent of the FBO market and lease nearly 70 percent of the FBO facilities at Love Field. Dallas submitted the comment to provide additional information about the situation at Love Field and highlight what Dallas believes to be competitive concerns the PFJ does not address. In particular, Dallas is concerned that the PFJ would not require Signature to report future FBO acquisitions at Love Field to the United States. Dallas does not, however, argue in favor of a divesture of FBO assets at Love Field.
The United States appreciates Dallas's advocacy efforts on behalf of competition at Love Field. The United States carefully considered the effects of the acquisition at Love Field and chose not to take enforcement action against such acquisition. Over the course of a five-month investigation, the United States reviewed party and third-party documents, conducted economic data analysis, and talked with dozens of industry participants including the Aviation Director for the City of Dallas. As a result of this investigation, the United States did not allege a violation of the Clayton Act resulting from the acquisition of Love Field in its Complaint. Therefore, the comment submitted by Dallas is not a comment addressing the question before the Court, which is whether the proposed remedy will cure the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint. Should any future acquisitions by Signature at Love Field raise a possibility of competitive harm, Dallas or any other affected party may raise those concerns with the United States to be evaluated at such future date.
After reviewing the public comment, the United States continues to believe that the PFJ, as drafted, provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint, and is therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this Court to enter the PFJ soon after the comment and this response are published in the
As counsel to the City of Dallas (“City”), Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP (“Firm”) submits these comments in the matter of
The City owns and operates Dallas Love Field Airport (“Love Field”). The City is concerned about the possible anticompetitive effects of the merger between Landmark and Signature at Love Field, where both Landmark and Signature currently operate.
Presently, there are six (6) fixed base operator (“FBO”) locations at Love Field, operated by five different FBO entities. Landmark operates one (1) of the FBO locations, and Signature operates two (2) of the locations.
The remaining three (3) FBOs sold 46 percent of the fuel, with two smaller locations selling approximately 9 percent each, and one larger entity selling 28 percent. In addition to conducting a majority of the fuel sales, Landmark and Signature together lease nearly
Under the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission's
At Love Field, the fuel flowage data suggests that the existing market is already highly concentrated, and that a merger of Signature and Landmark would increase the HHI by well over 200 points.
These facts and the Department's own guidelines demonstrate the need to carefully scrutinize the merger's potential effects at Love Field. Yet, the materials published by the Department of Justice in the
The proposed consent decree requires Signature and Landmark to divest their assets from six airports where both currently operate, but there is not even an acknowledgement that both firms operate FBOs at Love Field.
The proposed consent decree not only imposes no constraints on Signature-Landmark operations at Love Field, but would effectively allow Signature-Landmark to acquire another FBO at Love Field. The proposal allows such an acquisition at “an airport where [the merged entity] is already providing FBO Services in the United States
The City urges the Department of Justice to include more specific protections for Love Field and other airports that are not proposed for divestiture, but where the market power of the merged entity could pose a serious threat of further market concentration. Specifically, the City suggests including provisions that would serve to prevent the future purchase of FBOs at any airport where Signature and Landmark both operated prior to the merger, regardless of the value of the transaction or presence of additional FBOs. As explained above, the current provision in the proposed consent decree is too narrow to adequately protect Love Field. A broader provision would better protect Love Field and other airports from potential anticompetitive environments.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions about any of the comments in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
On May 27, 2016, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). The Complaint seeks reimbursement of response costs and injunctive relief under CERCLA for hazardous substance contamination at the Ottawa Township Flat Glass Site (“Site”).
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at the following DOJ Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $94.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $16.50.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice.
Notice of a modified system of records notice; extension of comment period.
The Department of Justice (Department or DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is extending the comment period for its proposal to modify an existing FBI system of records notice titled, “Fingerprint Identification Records System (FIRS),” JUSTICE/FBI-009, which would be retitled, “The Next Generation Identification (NGI) System,” JUSTICE/FBI-009, published in the
Comments on the notice published May 5, 2016 (81 FR 27284) must be submitted on or before July 6, 2016.
Submit comments to the Department of Justice, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, Department of Justice, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile at 202-307-0693. To ensure proper handling, please reference either this CPCLO Order No., or the CPCLO Order No. from the notice of modified system of records notice (CPCLO Order No. 002-2016) on your correspondence.
Roxane M. Panarella, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), Privacy Attorney, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg WV 26306.
On May 5, 2016, the Department requested comments on its proposal to modify an existing FBI system of records notice titled, “Fingerprint Identification Records System (FIRS),” JUSTICE/FBI-009, and its proposal to amend the Department's Privacy Act regulations by establishing an exemption for records in this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).
Both the notice of a modified system of records notice and notice of proposed rulemaking for this system of records originally provided that comments must be received by June 6, 2016. The Department has received requests to extend these comment periods. The Department believes that extending the comment periods would be appropriate in order to provide the public additional time to consider and comment on the proposals addressed in these notices. Therefore, the Department is extending both public comment periods for 30 days, until July 6, 2016. Elsewhere in the
Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Labor, published a document in the
Cherise Hunter by telephone at 202-693-4931 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
In the
The Legal Services Corporation's Finance Committee will meet telephonically on June 17, 2016. The meeting will commence at 3:00 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington DC 20007.
Public Observation: Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
•
•
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
Accessibility: LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by July 6, 2016. Once NARA completes appraisal of the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it has created or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after a thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability (in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0023, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains military and civilian personnel visa and passport transactions.
2. Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DAA-0371-2014-0016, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to the test and evaluation of electronic information systems.
3. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0015, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to policies, procedures, and administration of secure facilities for the purposes of continuity of operations.
4. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0033, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Copies of records regarding administration and maintenance of critical materials stockpiles.
5. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0044, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to warehouse management of parts used by the nuclear industry, including purchase, shipping, tracking, and delivery documents.
6. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2014-0010, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used by customers to rate products and services provided by DoD offices and facilities.
7. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2016-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used by victims of sexual assault to anonymously request help or assistance.
8. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2016-0004, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track help or assistance provided to victims of sexual assaults.
9. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2016-0005, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track inquiries for information on sexual assault cases.
10. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (DAA-0292-2016-0015, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to the audit process of the National Child Support Program, including audit findings, correspondence, and interim reports.
11. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2016-0005, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Applications for employment authorizations.
12. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2016-0009, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track and process applications, petitions, and requests for benefits and services.
13. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DAA-0170-2015-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Audit report files.
14. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide (DAA-NU-2015-0001, 42 items, 31 temporary items). Records relating to military personnel including program planning and management, recruiting, training, confinement of prisoners, routine communications traffic, and related matters. Proposed for permanent retention are personnel files, personnel information system master files, student records, visual information, and records relating to policy, personnel accounting, awards, casualties, education, review boards, and corrections management.
15. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2013-0009, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records relating to risk assessments of Marine Corps facilities, including asset location, asset names, asset missions and risk mitigation planning.
16. Department of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism (DAA-0059-2014-0024, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records include staff program files of the Front Office. Proposed for permanent retention are program files of the Front Office, including those of the Coordinator and Principal Deputy Coordinator.
17. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (DAA-0399-2014-0001, 8 items, 6 temporary items). Records relating to railroad policy and development, including completed and canceled project case files, environmental records, maps, subject files, and routine analysis records. Proposed for permanent retention are Amtrak Board of Directors records and landmark analysis records.
18. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0003, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to tax return preparer registration, renewal, and payment processing.
19. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (DAA-0015-2016-0004, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to health care worker training.
20. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency-wide (DAA-0255-2015-0001, 6 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to NASA building designs for the headquarters facility and centers located throughout the nation, including preliminary design files, drawings, and records of cancelled projects. Proposed for permanent retention are final design files of
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
NCUA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a reinstatement of a previously approved collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Written comments should be received on or before August 5, 2016 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Dawn Wolfgang, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above.
The information collection requirements is for those credit unions seeking an exemption from the nonmember deposit limit must adopt a specific written plan concerning the intended use of those shares and submit along with their lending and investment policies to the NCUA Regional Director. NCUA uses this information to determine whether or not a particular credit union will be granted an exemption to the limit on nonmember and public unit deposits. This collection of information is necessary to protect the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.
Adjustment are being made to included additional information collections requirements of § 701.32 that were omitted in the previous submission.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on June 1, 2016.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before July 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
The forms covered under this collection of information are necessary to implement the requirements associated with membership in the CLF and extension of credit to CLF members.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on June 1, 2016.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
This action relates to the monthly submission of information by corporate credit unions. This information is used by the NCUA to monitor the financial conditions of those credit unions.
Comments will be accepted until August 5, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Troy Hillier, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428; Fax No. 703-519-8595; or Email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above.
Through this action, the NCUA is also combining two currently approved collections—the monthly call report (OMB Number 3133-0067) and the annual report of officials (OMB Number 3133-0053). These collections will both be submitted through the same online portal and the combination of the two collections under a single control number is consistent with the treatment of this data for natural person credit unions (OMB Number 3133-0004).
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on June 1, 2016.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Intent to conduct scoping process and prepare environmental impact statement; public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a scoping process to gather the information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the environmental impacts for the renewal of the operating license for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 (Waterford). The NRC is seeking stakeholder input on this action and has scheduled a public meeting.
Submit comments by August 1, 2016. Comments received after these dates will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Elaine Keegan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0078 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0078 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
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 publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comments submissions into ADAMS.
On March 23, 2016, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted to the NRC an application for renewal of Facility Operating License NPF-38 for an additional 20 years of operation at Waterford. Waterford is located in Killona, LA. The current operating license for Waterford expires on expires on December 18, 2024. The application for renewal was submitted pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the
This notice informs the public of the NRC's intention to prepare an EIS related to the review of the license renewal application and to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, as defined in 10 CFR 51.29.
The regulations in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act,” allows agencies to use their National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process to fulfill the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC intends to use its process and documentation for the preparation of the EIS on the proposed action to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth at 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, Entergy submitted the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR part 51 and is publicly available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16088A324. The ER may also be viewed on the Internet at
The NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the NRC's “Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” (NUREG-1437) related to the review of the application for renewal of the Waterford operating license for an additional 20 years.
Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations found at 10 CFR part 51.
The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following:
a. Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS;
b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth;
c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant;
d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS being considered;
e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action;
f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule;
g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and
h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared and include any contractor assistance to be used.
The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping:
a. The applicant, Entergy;
b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;
c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;
d. Any affected Indian tribe;
e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and
f. Any person who has petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC has decided to hold one public meeting for the Waterford license renewal supplement to the GEIS. The scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. The meeting will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the St. Charles Parish Emergency Operation Center, 15026 River Road, Hahnville, Louisiana, 10057. There will be a registration period from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for members of the public to sign in to speak.
The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the proposed review schedule; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing, as discussed in the
Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meetings on the scope of the NEPA review by contacting the NRC Project Manager, Ms. Elaine Keegan, by telephone at 800-368-5642, extension 8517, or by email at
Participation in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Matters related to participation in any hearing are outside the scope of matters to be discussed at this public meeting. The notice of acceptance for docketing of the application and a description of the hearing process will be published separately in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-0090, Volume 38, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2015.” The report describes a total of 17 events for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Fifteen events involved Agreement State licensees and two events involved NRC licensees.
NUREG-0090, Volume 38, is available June 6, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0099 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:
•
•
•
Minh-Thuy Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-5163, email:
Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-438), defines an “abnormal occurrence” (AO) as an unscheduled incident or event that the NRC determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The report describes those events that the NRC identified as AOs during FY 2015, based on the criteria defined in Appendix A of the report, “Abnormal Occurrence Criteria and Guidelines for Other Events of Interest.”
The report describes 15 events at Agreement State-licensed facilities and two events at NRC-licensed facilities. One NRC-licensee event occurred in a medical facility and involved radiation exposure to an embryo/fetus. The 15 Agreement State-licensee events and the other NRC-licensee event were medical events as defined in part 35 of title 10 of the
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-68) requires that the NRC report AOs to Congress annually. The full report, NUREG-0090, Volume 38, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2015,” is available electronically at the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On April 12, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the benchmark index applicable to the WisdomTree Managed Futures Strategy Fund. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission previously approved the listing and trading of the shares (“Shares”) of the Fund on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600,
The Prior Releases stated that the Adviser would manage the Fund using a strategy designed to correspond to the performance of the Diversified Trends Indicator
The Adviser believes that it is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders to replace the Original Benchmark with the New Benchmark while keeping the Fund's asset exposure and investment strategies similar, and without changing the Fund's investment objective. The Adviser believes that the New Benchmark will serve to optimize the Fund's investment strategy, while seeking to provide enhanced risk-adjusted returns over time.
According to the Prior Releases, the WisdomTree Managed Futures Strategy Fund seeks to provide investors with positive total returns in rising or falling markets that are not directly correlated to broad market equity or fixed income returns. The Fund is currently managed using a quantitative, rules-based strategy designed to provide returns that correspond to the performance of the Original Benchmark. The Original Benchmark is a widely used indicator designed to capture the economic benefit derived from rising or declining price trends in commodity, currency, and U.S. Treasury futures markets.
Under this proposed rule change, the Exchange seeks to permit the Fund to be managed using a different, quantitative, rules-based strategy, described below, that is designed to provide returns that correspond to the New Benchmark. The New Benchmark is a proprietary index, developed and owned by WisdomTree Investments that is also designed to capture the economic benefit derived from rising or declining price trends in commodity, currency, and U.S. Treasury futures markets.
Differences between the Original Benchmark and the New Benchmark are described below.
The Original Benchmark is a rules-based indicator designed to capture rising and falling price trends in the commodity, currency and U.S. Treasury futures markets through long and short positions on U.S. listed futures contracts. The Original Benchmark consists of U.S. listed futures contracts on 16 tangible commodities and 8 financial futures. The 16 commodity futures contracts are: Light crude oil, natural gas, RBOB gas (“Gasoline”), heating oil, soybeans, corn, wheat, gold, silver, copper, live cattle, lean hogs, coffee, cocoa, cotton and sugar. The 8 financial futures contracts are: the Australian dollar (“AUD”), British pound sterling (“GBP”), Canadian dollar (“CAD”), Euro (“EUR”), Japanese yen (“JPY”), Swiss franc (“CHF”), 10-year U.S. Treasury note and 30-year U.S. Treasury bond. Each contract is sometimes referred to as a “Component” of the Original Benchmark.
The New Benchmark also is a rules-based indicator designed to capture rising and falling price trends in the commodity, currency and U.S. Treasury futures markets through long and short positions on U.S. listed futures contracts. The New Benchmark consists of U.S. listed futures contracts on 16 tangible commodities and 8 financial futures. The 16 commodity futures contracts are: Light crude oil, natural gas, Gasoline, heating oil, soybeans, corn, wheat, gold, silver, copper, live cattle, lean hogs, coffee, cocoa, cotton and sugar. The 8 financial futures contracts are: the AUD, GBP, CAD, EUR, JPY, CHF, 10-year U.S. Treasury note and 30-year U.S. Treasury bond. Each contract is sometimes referred to as a “Component” of the New Benchmark.
Under the Original Benchmark, Components that are similar in nature (such as gas and oil or gold and silver) are aggregated into “Sectors.” There are nine commodity Sectors in the Original Benchmark: Energy (light crude oil, natural gas, Gasoline, and heating oil), Grains (soybeans, corn), Precious Metals (gold and silver), Industrial Metals (copper), Livestock (live cattle, lean hogs), Coffee, Cocoa, Cotton, and Sugar. Each financial futures contract is considered to be its own Sector. As a result, there are eight financial Sectors in the Original Benchmark: The AUD, GBP, CAD, EUR, JPY, CHF, 10-year U.S. Treasury note and 30-year U.S. Treasury bond.
Under the New Benchmark, there are no Sectors, but rather each of the 24 Components is treated separately for weighting and long, short or flat position determinations. The twenty Components with the lowest 36-month rolling volatility are included. All Components may be long, short or flat, except for Energy futures (
Within the Original Benchmark, Components may be positioned as long or short, except that the Energy Sector and its Components may never be positioned short. The Original Benchmark's methodology provides that, due to significant levels of continuous consumption, limited reserves and other factors, the Energy Sector can only be long or flat (
At the beginning of each calendar year and month, the Original Benchmark is weighted evenly (
If the Energy Sector is flat then the weighting of the other Sectors and Components within the Benchmark is increased on a pro-rata basis.
At the beginning of each calendar year and month, each Component and Sector within the Original Benchmark also has a “Base Weight,” depending on whether the Energy Sector is long or flat. If the Energy Sector is flat, then the Base Weight of the other Sectors and Components within the Original Benchmark is increased on a pro-rata basis. Commodity Sector weights are based on, but not exactly proportional to, historical world production levels. Commodity Sectors that have higher historical production levels are weighted higher in the Original Benchmark. Weightings of the financial futures Sectors are based on, but not directly proportional to, historical gross domestic product (“GDP”). Larger economic regions (
Under the New Benchmark, the 20 Components with the lowest realized 36 month rolling volatility will be included.
The listed financial futures contracts included in the New Benchmark (and therefore anticipated to be included in the Fund) are heavily traded and represent six of the world's most liquid and actively-traded currencies (as well as the U.S. dollar through futures on 30-year Treasury bonds and 10-year Treasury notes). According to the Adviser, as of January 1, 2016, the 3-month ADTV of the financial futures contracts representing Components in the New Benchmark were as follows: EUR: $33,014,630,700; AUD: $7,428,685,500; CAD: $6,686,911,000; GBP: $8,644,461,188; CHF: $9,904,476,250; 10-year Treasury note: $148,389,752,565; and 30-year Treasury bond: $38,918,903,603.
The New Benchmark determines a Composite Momentum Signal for each asset, based on the 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month returns (each, a “Signal”) for the asset, based on its rolling schedule. If the return is positive, the New Benchmark will assign positive one (+1) to it; if the return is negative, the New Benchmark will assign a negative one (−1) to it. The three Signals are aggregated by the New Benchmark, and if all signals are in the same direction, the Fund will invest the assigned weight. Otherwise, the Fund will invest two-thirds of the assigned weight. The direction of the trade (
The weight of each Component and Sector in the Original Benchmark changes throughout each month based upon performance. At the end of each month, each Sector is reset back to its applicable Base Weight depending on whether the Energy Sector is long or flat. Within Sectors that have multiple Components, the weight of each Component relative to the others is allowed to fluctuate throughout the year and Component weights are reset back to their respective Base Weights only at year-end.
Under the New Benchmark, each month, the 20 assets with the lowest 36-month volatility on a rolling basis are included. If an asset within the Energy group is short, the value of that asset is flat and allocated proportionately to the included assets. Weighing is then determined as discussed above.
As stated in the Prior Releases, in order to capture both rising and falling price trends, at the end of each month each Sector in the Original Benchmark (other than the Energy Sector) is positioned as either “long” or “short.” This determination is made using an algorithm that compares the Sector's monthly return to the Sector's historic weighted moving average returns. If the Sector's returns are above its moving average returns, the Sector is positioned as “long” throughout the following month. If the Sector's returns are below its moving average, the Sector is positioned as “short” throughout the following month (with the exception of the Energy Sector, which would be positioned flat). All Components within a Sector are held in the same direction. The value of a Sector and the value of the Original Benchmark should increase if a long position increases in value or if a short position decreases in value. For example, if a Sector is long in the Original Benchmark and the value of its Components goes up intra-month, the return of the Sector (and therefore the Original Benchmark) should increase. If a Sector is short in the Original Benchmark, and the value of its Components goes down intra-month, the return of the Sector (and therefore the Original Benchmark) should increase.
Under the New Benchmark, the Fund will be rebalanced each month based on the Composite Momentum Signal framework described above. Just as under the Original Benchmark, the New Benchmark should increase if a long position increases in value or if a short position decreases in value. For example, if a Component is long in the New Benchmark and its value goes up intra-month, the return of the Component (and therefore the New Benchmark) should increase. If a Component is short in the New
The Adviser represents that the Sub-Adviser will continue to invest the Fund in the same assets as are contained in the Prior Releases and will remain subject to, and invest the Fund assets, in accordance [sic] all of the other requirements and limitations identified in the Prior Releases. As a condition to continued listing and trading Shares of the Fund on the Exchange, the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600.
Except for the changes noted above, all other facts presented and representations made in the Prior Releases are unchanged.
The basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Adviser represents that there is no change to the Fund's investment objective or to the securities or other assets identified in the Prior Releases that the Fund utilizes in seeking to achieve its investment objective. The Fund's use of such securities and other assets will remain subject to all requirements and applicable limitations identified in the Prior Releases. As a condition to the continued listing and trading of the Shares on the Exchange, the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600.
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 Adviser represents that there is no change to the Fund's investment objective. The Adviser represents that the allocations of the Fund's portfolio will remain consistent with the allocation limitations discussed in the Prior Releases, and that the Fund may invest in the same instruments as are contained in the Original Benchmark, as discussed in the Prior Release. However, the Adviser now represents that the Fund will use portfolio management strategies in seeking to achieve its investment objective in a manner that allocates the Fund's investments in those same instruments in a manner to correspond to the New Benchmark, rather than the Original Benchmark.
All statements and representations made in this filing and the Prior Releases regarding (a) the description of the Fund's portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The Adviser has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements.
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 the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600. The proposed rule change will permit the Fund to continue to operate in a manner similar to other Managed Fund Shares that invest primarily in futures contracts, and will permit continued listing on the Exchange for the Fund after it begins to utilize the quantitative, rules-based strategy designed to seek performance that corresponds to the New Benchmark, which will enhance competition among issues Managed Fund Shares currently trading on the Exchange. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the Prior Releases are unchanged.
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change will permit the continued listing on the Exchange of the Fund after it begins to utilize the quantitative, rules-based strategy designed to correspond to the New Benchmark, which will enhance competition among issues of Managed Fund Shares.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to implement the quoting and trading provisions of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish rules to require its ETP Holders
The term ETP is defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(m) to mean an equity trading permit issued by NYSE Arca Equities for effecting approved securities transactions on NYSE Arca Equities' trading facilities.
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, the Exchange and NYSE MKT LLC (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small capitalization companies. The Commission plans to use the Tick Size Pilot Program to assess whether wider tick sizes enhance the market quality of Pilot Securities for the benefit of issuers and investors. Each Participant is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance by its ETP Holders, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.
On October 9, 2015, the Operating Committee approved the Exchange's proposed rules as model Participant rules that would require compliance by a Participant's members with the provisions of the Plan, as applicable, and would establish written policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
The Tick Size Pilot Program will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Tick Pilot Program will consist of a control group of approximately 1,400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.
The Tick Pilot Program also contains requirements for the collection and transmission of data to the Commission and the public. A variety of data generated during the Tick Pilot Program will be released publicly on an aggregated basis to assist in analyzing the impact of wider tick sizes on smaller capitalization stocks.
The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of new Rule 7.46 would establish the following defined terms:
• “Plan” means the Tick Size Pilot Plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608(a)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act;
• “Pilot Test Groups” means the three test groups established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot Securities each, which satisfy the respective criteria established by the Plan for each such test group.
• “Retail Investor Order” would mean an agency order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a retail ETP Holder, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. A Retail Investor Order may be an odd lot, round lot, or partial round lot.
• Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order”
(i) When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and
(ii) Simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. These additional routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders.
• Paragraph (a)(1)(E) would provide that all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this rule shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan, Regulation NMS under the Act, or Exchange rules, as applicable.
Proposed Paragraph (a)(2) would state that the Exchange is a Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the Plan; proposed Paragraph (a)(3) would require ETP Holders to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the Plan, which would allow the Exchange to enforce compliance by its ETP Holders with the provisions of the Plan, as required pursuant to Section II(B) of the Plan.
In addition, Paragraph (a)(4) would provide that Exchange systems would not display, quote or trade in violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan and this proposed rule, unless such quotation or transaction is specifically exempted under the Plan.
The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 7.46(a)(5) to provide for the treatment of Pilot Securities that drop below a $1.00 value during the Pilot Period.
The Exchange proposes Rules 7.46(c)-(e), which would require ETP Holders to comply with the specific quoting and trading obligations for each Pilot Test Group under the Plan. With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group One, proposed Rule 7.46(c) would provide that no ETP Holder may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in increments other than $0.05. However, orders priced to trade at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and National Best Offer (“NBBO”) or Best Protected Bid and Best Protect Offer (“PBBO”) and orders entered in the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as Retail Price Improvement Orders (“Retail Price Improvement Order”)
With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, proposed Rule 7.46(d)(1) would provide that such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test Group One, along with the applicable quoting exceptions. In addition, proposed Rule 7.46(d)(2) would provide that, absent one of the listed exceptions in proposed Rule 7.46(d)(3) enumerated below, no ETP Holder may execute orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in
Paragraph (d)(3) would set forth further requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, ETP Holders trading Pilot Securities in Test Group Two would be allowed to trade in increments less than $0.05 under the following circumstances:
(A) Trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or PBBO;
(B) Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the Best Protected Bid or the Best Protected Offer;
(C) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments less than $0.05; and
(D) Execution of a customer order to comply with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5320
(a) Except as provided herein, an ETP Holder that accepts and holds an order in an equity security from its own customer or a customer of another broker-dealer without immediately executing the order is prohibited from trading that security on the same side of the market for its own account at a price that would satisfy the customer order, unless it immediately thereafter executes the customer order up to the size and at the same or better price at which it traded for its own account.
(b) An ETP Holder must have a written methodology in place governing the execution and priority of all pending orders that is consistent with the requirements of this Rule and NASD Rule 2320. An ETP Holder also must ensure that this methodology is consistently applied.
Paragraph (e)(1)-(e)(3) would set forth the requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. ETP Holders quoting or trading such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting and trading requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, including the quoting and trading exceptions applicable to Test Group Two Pilot Securities. In addition, proposed Paragraph (e)(4) would provide for an additional prohibition on Pilot Securities in Test Group Three referred to as the “Trade-at Prohibition.”
Proposed Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C) would allow ETP Holders to execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer if any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The order is executed as agent or riskless principal by an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,
Independent trading unit aggregation is available if traders in an aggregation unit pursue only the particular trading objective(s) or strategy(s) of that aggregation unit and do not coordinate that strategy with any other aggregation unit. Therefore, a Trading Center cannot rely on quotations displayed by that broker dealer from a different independent trading unit. As an example, an agency desk of a broker-dealer cannot rely on the quotation of a proprietary desk in a separate independent trading unit at that same broker-dealer.
(ii) The order is executed by an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO, of a Trading Center within an ETP Holder that has a displayed quotation for the account of that Trading Center on a principal (excluding riskless principal
(iii) The order is of Block Size
A. an aggregation of non-block orders;
B. broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading Center for execution; or
C. executed on multiple Trading Centers;
(iv) The order is a Retail Investor Order executed with at least $0.005 price improvement;
(v) The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded at was experiencing a failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
(vi) The order is executed as part of a transaction that was not a “regular way” contract;
(vii) The order is executed as part of a single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction on the Exchange;
(viii) The order is executed when a Protected Bid was priced higher than a Protected Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three;
(ix) The order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order;
The Exchange proposed an exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition for Trade-at ISOs to clarify that an ISO that is received by a Trading Center (and which could form the basis of an execution at the price of a Protected Quotation pursuant to Section VI(D)(8) of the Plan), is identified as a Trade-at ISO. Depending on whether Rule 611 of Regulation NMS or the Trade-at requirement applies, an ISO may mean that the sender of the ISO has swept better-priced Protected Quotations, so that the recipient of that ISO may trade through the price of the Protected Quotation (Rule 611 of Regulation NMS), or it could mean that the sender of the ISO has swept Protected Quotations at the same price that it wishes to execute at (in addition to any better-priced quotations), so the recipient of that ISO may trade at the price of the Protected Quotation (Trade-at). Given that the meaning of an ISO may differ under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and Trade-at, the Exchange proposed an exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition for Trade-at ISOs so that the recipient of an ISO in a Test Group Three security would know, upon receipt of that ISO, that the Trading Center that sent the ISO had already executed against the full size of displayed quotations at that price,
(x) The order is executed by a Trading Center that simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was traded at;
(xi) The order is executed as part of a Negotiated Trade;
(xii) The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed, within one second prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the Pilot Security in Test Group Three with a price that was inferior to the price of the Trade-at transaction;
(xiii) The order is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no worse than a specified price (a “stopped order”), where:
A. The stopped order was for the account of a customer;
B. The customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and
C. The price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to or less than the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to or greater than the National Best Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution, as long as such order is priced at an acceptable increment;
To illustrate the application of the stopped order exemption as it currently operates under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and as it is currently proposed for Trade-at, assume the National Best Bid is $10.00 and another protected quote is at $9.95. Under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, a stopped order to buy can be filled at $9.95 and the firm does not have to send an ISO to access the protected quote at $10.00 since the price of the stopped order must be lower than the National Best Bid. For the stopped order to also be executed at $9.95 and satisfy the Trade-at requirements, the Trade-at exception would have to be revised to allow an order to execute at the price of a protected quote which, in this case, could be $9.95.
Based on the fact that a stopped order would be treated differently under the Rule 611 of Regulation NMS exception than under the Trade-at exception in the Plan, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend the Trade-at stopped order exception in the Plan to ensure that the application of this exception would produce a consistent result under both Regulation NMS and the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange proposes in this proposed Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(xiii) to allow a transaction to satisfy the Trade-at requirement if the stopped order price, for a stopped buy order, is equal to or less than the National Best Bid, and for a stopped sell order, is equal to or greater than the National Best Offer, as long as such order is priced at an acceptable increment. The Commission granted New York Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this provision.
(xiv) The order is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security in Test Group Three, provided that such fractional share order was not the result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of a Pilot Security in Test Group Three into orders for fractional shares or was not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan; or
(xv) The order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded by the Trading Center in its error account.
Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to exempt certain transactions to correct bona fide errors in the execution of customer orders from the Trade-at Prohibition, subject to the conditions set forth by the SEC's order exempting these transactions from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. The Commission granted New York Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this provision.
As with the corresponding exception under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the bona fide error would have to be evidenced by objective facts and circumstances, the Trading Center would have to maintain documentation of such facts and circumstances and record the transaction in its error account. To avail itself of the exemption, the Trading Center would have to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the occurrence of errors and, in the event of an error, the use and terms of a transaction to correct the error in compliance with this exemption. Finally, the Trading Center would have to regularly surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of its policies and procedures to address errors and transactions to correct errors and take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and procedures.
A. The inaccurate conveyance or execution of any term of an order including, but not limited to, price, number of shares or other unit of trading; identification of the security; identification of the account for which securities are purchased or sold; lost or otherwise misplaced order tickets; short sales that were instead sold long or vice versa; or the execution of an order on the wrong side of a market;
B. The unauthorized or unintended purchase, sale, or allocation of
C. The incorrect entry of data into relevant systems, including reliance on incorrect cash positions, withdrawals, or securities positions reflected in an account; or
D. A delay, outage, or failure of a communication system used to transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or execution of an order.
Finally, Proposed Rule 7.46(e)(4)(D) would prevent ETP Holders from breaking an order into smaller orders or otherwise effecting or executing an order to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Furthermore, the Exchange is a Participant under the Plan and subject, itself, to the provisions of the Plan. The proposed rule change ensures that the Exchange's systems would not display or execute trading interests outside the requirements specified in such Plan. The proposal would also help allow market participants to continue to trade NMS Stocks within quoting and trading requirements that are in compliance with the Plan, with certainty on how certain orders and trading interests would be treated. This, in turn, will help encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity in the marketplace.
Because the Plan supports further examination and analysis on the impact of tick sizes on the trading and liquidity of the securities of small capitalization companies, and the Commission believes that altering tick sizes could result in significant market-wide benefits and improvements to liquidity and capital formation, adopting rules that enforce compliance by its ETP Holders with the provisions of the Plan would help promote liquidity in the marketplace and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other equities exchanges are also Participants. Other competing national securities exchanges are subject to the same trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose any burden on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and execution of trading interests on the Exchange to market participants in NMS Stocks that are acting in compliance with the requirements specified in the Plan.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 22, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to implement the quoting and trading provisions of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish rules to require its member organizations to comply with the requirements of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (the “Plan”),
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, the Exchange and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small capitalization companies. The Commission plans to use the Tick Size Pilot Program to assess whether wider tick sizes enhance the market quality of Pilot Securities for the benefit of issuers and investors. Each Participant is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.
On October 9, 2015, the Operating Committee approved the Exchange's proposed rules as model Participant rules that would require compliance by a Participant's members with the provisions of the Plan, as applicable, and would establish written policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
The Tick Size Pilot Program will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Tick Pilot Program will consist of a control group of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.
The Tick Pilot Program also contains requirements for the collection and transmission of data to the Commission and the public. A variety of data generated during the Tick Pilot Program will be released publicly on an aggregated basis to assist in analyzing the impact of wider tick sizes on smaller capitalization stocks.
The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of new Rule 67—Equities would establish the following defined terms:
• “Plan” means the Tick Size Pilot Plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608(a)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act;
• “Pilot Test Groups” means the three test groups established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot Securities each, which satisfy the respective criteria established by the Plan for each such test group.
• “Retail Investor Order” would mean an agency order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a retail member organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. A Retail Investor Order may be an odd lot, round lot, or partial round lot.
• Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order”
(i) When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and
(ii) Simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. These additional routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders.
• Paragraph (a)(1)(E) would provide that all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this rule shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan, Regulation NMS under the Act, or Exchange rules, as applicable.
Proposed Paragraph (a)(2) would state that the Exchange is a Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the Plan; proposed Paragraph (a)(3) would require member organizations to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the Plan, which would allow the Exchange to enforce compliance by its member organizations with the provisions of the Plan, as required pursuant to Section II(B) of the Plan.
In addition, Paragraph (a)(4) would provide that Exchange systems would not display, quote or trade in violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan and this proposed rule, unless such quotation or transaction is specifically exempted under the Plan.
The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 67(a)(5)—Equities to provide for the treatment of Pilot Securities that drop below a $1.00 value during the Pilot Period.
The Exchange proposes Rules 67(c)-(e)—Equities, which would require member organizations to comply with the specific quoting and trading
With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, proposed Rule 67(d)(1)—Equities would provide that such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test Group One, along with the applicable quoting exceptions. In addition, proposed Rule 67(d)(2)—Equities would provide that, absent one of the listed exceptions in proposed Rule 67(d)(3)—Equities enumerated below, no member organization may execute orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than $0.05. The $0.05 trading increment would apply to all trades, including Brokered Cross Trades.
Paragraph (d)(3) would set forth further requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, member organizations trading Pilot Securities in Test Group Two would be allowed to trade in increments less than $0.05 under the following circumstances:
(A) Trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or PBBO;
(B) Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the Best Protected Bid or the Best Protected Offer;
(C) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments less than $0.05; and
(D) Execution of a customer order to comply with Rule 5320—Equities
(a) Except as provided herein, a member organization that accepts and holds an order in an equity security from its own customer or a customer of another broker-dealer without immediately executing the order is prohibited from trading that security on the same side of the market for its own account at a price that would satisfy the customer order, unless it immediately thereafter executes the customer order up to the size and at the same or better price at which it traded for its own account.
(b) A member organization must have a written methodology in place governing the execution and priority of all pending orders that is consistent with the requirements of this Rule and NASD Rule 2320. A member organization also must ensure that this methodology is consistently applied.
Paragraph (e)(1)-(e)(3) would set forth the requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. Member organizations quoting or trading such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting and trading requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, including the quoting and trading exceptions applicable to Test Group Two Pilot Securities. In addition, proposed Paragraph (e)(4) would provide for an additional prohibition on Pilot Securities in Test Group Three referred to as the “Trade-at Prohibition.”
Proposed Rule 67(e)(4)(C)—Equities would allow member organizations to execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer if any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The order is executed as agent or riskless principal by an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,
Independent trading unit aggregation is available if traders in an aggregation unit pursue only the particular trading objective(s) or strategy(s) of that aggregation unit and do not coordinate that strategy with any other aggregation unit. Therefore, a Trading Center cannot rely on quotations displayed by that broker dealer from a different independent trading unit. As an example, an agency desk of a broker-dealer cannot rely on the quotation of a proprietary desk in a separate independent trading unit at that same broker-dealer.
(ii) The order is executed by an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO, of a Trading Center within a member organization that has a displayed quotation for the account of that Trading Center on a principal (excluding riskless principal
(iii) The order is of Block Size
A. An aggregation of non-block orders;
B. broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading Center for execution; or
C. executed on multiple Trading Centers;
(iv) The order is a Retail Investor Order executed with at least $0.005 price improvement;
(v) The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded at was experiencing a failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
(vi) The order is executed as part of a transaction that was not a “regular way” contract;
(vii) The order is executed as part of a single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction on the Exchange;
(viii) The order is executed when a Protected Bid was priced higher than a Protected Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three;
(ix) The order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order;
The Exchange proposed an exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition for Trade-at ISOs to clarify that an ISO that is received by a Trading Center (and which could form the basis of an execution at the price of a Protected Quotation pursuant to Section VI(D)(8) of the Plan), is identified as a Trade-at ISO. Depending on whether Rule 611 of Regulation NMS or the Trade-at requirement applies, an ISO may mean that the sender of the ISO has swept better-priced Protected Quotations, so that the recipient of that ISO may trade through the price of the Protected Quotation (Rule 611 of Regulation NMS), or it could mean that the sender of the ISO has swept Protected Quotations at the same price that it wishes to execute at (in addition to any better-priced quotations), so the recipient of that ISO may trade at the price of the Protected Quotation (Trade-at). Given that the meaning of an ISO may differ under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and Trade-at, the Exchange proposed an exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition for Trade-at ISOs so that the recipient of an ISO in a Test Group Three security would know, upon receipt of that ISO, that the Trading Center that sent the ISO had already executed against the full size of displayed quotations at that price,
(x) The order is executed by a Trading Center that simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was traded at;
(xi) The order is executed as part of a Negotiated Trade;
(xii) The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed, within one second prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the Pilot Security in Test Group Three with a price that was inferior to the price of the Trade-at transaction;
(xiii) The order is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no worse than a specified price (a “stopped order”), where:
A. The stopped order was for the account of a customer;
B. The customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and
C. The price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to or less than the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to or greater than the National Best Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution, as long as such order is priced at an acceptable increment;
To illustrate the application of the stopped order exemption as it currently operates under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and as it is currently proposed for Trade-at, assume the National Best Bid is $10.00 and another protected quote is at $9.95. Under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, a stopped order to buy can be filled at $9.95 and the firm does not have to send an ISO to access the protected quote at $10.00 since the price of the stopped order must be lower than the National Best Bid. For the stopped order to also be executed at $9.95 and satisfy the Trade-at requirements, the Trade-at exception would have to be revised to allow an order to execute at the price of a protected quote which, in this case, could be $9.95.
Based on the fact that a stopped order would be treated differently under the Rule 611 of Regulation NMS exception than under the Trade-at exception in the Plan, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend the Trade-at stopped order exception in the Plan to ensure that the application of this exception would produce a consistent result under both Regulation NMS and the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange proposes in this proposed Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiii)—Equities to allow a transaction to satisfy the Trade-at requirement if the stopped order price, for a stopped buy order, is equal to or less than the National Best Bid, and for a stopped sell order, is equal to or greater than the National Best Offer, as long as such order is priced at an acceptable increment. The Commission granted New York Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this provision.
(xiv) The order is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security in Test Group Three, provided that such fractional share order was not the result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of a Pilot Security in Test Group Three into orders for fractional shares or was not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan; or
(xv) The order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded by the Trading Center in its error account.
Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to exempt certain transactions to correct bona fide errors in the execution of customer orders from the Trade-at Prohibition, subject to the conditions set forth by the SEC's order exempting these transactions from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. The Commission granted New York Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this provision.
As with the corresponding exception under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the bona fide error would have to be evidenced by objective facts and circumstances, the Trading Center would have to maintain documentation of such facts and circumstances and record the transaction in its error account. To avail itself of the exemption, the Trading Center would have to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the occurrence of errors and, in the event of an error, the use and terms of a transaction to correct the error in compliance with this exemption. Finally, the Trading Center would have to regularly surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of its policies and procedures to address errors and transactions to correct errors and take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and procedures.
A. The inaccurate conveyance or execution of any term of an order including, but not limited to, price, number of shares or other unit of trading; identification of the security; identification of the account for which securities are purchased or sold; lost or otherwise misplaced order tickets; short sales that were instead sold long or vice versa; or the execution of an order on the wrong side of a market;
B. The unauthorized or unintended purchase, sale, or allocation of securities, or the failure to follow specific client instructions;
C. The incorrect entry of data into relevant systems, including reliance on incorrect cash positions, withdrawals, or securities positions reflected in an account; or
D. A delay, outage, or failure of a communication system used to transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or execution of an order.
Finally, Proposed Rule 67(e)(4)(D)—Equities would prevent member organizations from breaking an order into smaller orders or otherwise effecting or executing an order to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Furthermore, the Exchange is a Participant under the Plan and subject, itself, to the provisions of the Plan. The proposed rule change ensures that the Exchange's systems would not display or execute trading interests outside the requirements specified in such Plan. The proposal would also help allow market participants to continue to trade NMS Stocks within quoting and trading requirements that are in compliance with the Plan, with certainty on how certain orders and trading interests would be treated. This, in turn, will help encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity in the marketplace.
Because the Plan supports further examination and analysis on the impact of tick sizes on the trading and liquidity of the securities of small capitalization companies, and the Commission believes that altering tick sizes could result in significant market-wide benefits and improvements to liquidity and capital formation, adopting rules that enforce compliance by its member organizations with the provisions of the Plan would help promote liquidity in the marketplace and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other equities exchanges are also Participants. Other competing national securities exchanges are subject to the same trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose any burden on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and execution of trading interests on the Exchange to market participants in NMS Stocks that are acting in compliance with the requirements specified in the Plan.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oklahoma dated 05/26/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14730 B and for economic injury is 14731 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Oklahoma.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than August 5, 2016. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Waiver of Your Right to Personal Appearance before an Administrative Law Judge—20 CFR 404.948(b)(l)(i) and 416.1448(b)(l)(i)-0960-0284. Applicants for Social Security, Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments have the statutory right to appear in person, or through a representative, and present evidence about their claims at a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). If claimants wish to waive this right to appear before an ALJ, they must do so in writing. Form HA-4608 serves as a written waiver for the claimant's right to a personal appearance before an ALJ. The ALJ uses the information we collect on Form HA-4608 to continue processing the case, and makes the completed form a part of the documentary evidence of record by placing it in the official record of the proceedings as an exhibit. Respondents are applicants or claimants for OASDI and SSI, or their representatives, who request to waive their right to appear in person before an ALJ.
2. Letter to Custodian of Birth Records/Letter to Custodian of School Records—20 CFR 404.704, 404.716, 416.802, and 422.107—0960-0693. When individuals need help in obtaining evidence of their age in connection with Social Security number (SSN) card applications and claims for benefits, SSA can prepare the SSA-L106, Letter to Custodian of School Records, or SSA-L706, Letter to Custodian of Birth Records. SSA uses the SSA-L706 to determine the existence of primary evidence of age of SSN applicants. SSA uses both letters to verify with the issuing entity, when necessary, the authenticity of the record submitted by the SSN applicant or claimant. The respondents are schools, State and local bureaus of vital statistics, and religious entities.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 6, 2016. Individuals can obtain copies of
Waiver of Supplemental Security Income Payment Continuation—20 CFR 416.1400-416.1422—0960-0783. SSI recipients who wish to discontinue their SSI payments while awaiting a determination on their appeal complete Form SSA-263-U2, Waiver of Supplemental Security Income Payment Continuation, to inform SSA of this decision. SSA collects the information to determine whether the SSI recipient meets the provisions of The Social Security Act regarding waiver of payment continuation and as proof respondents no longer want their payments to continue. Respondents are recipients of SSI payments who wish to discontinue receipt of payment while awaiting a determination on their appeal
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 14, 2016, in room 5Y23-21, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave SE., Washington, DC 20593-7213. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the third Session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments (III 3) to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, on July 18-22, 2016.
The agenda items to be considered include:
The public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, Mr. Christopher Gagnon, by email at
Department of State.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to August 5, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/L 44132 Mercure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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.
Under 22 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 211a
Passport applicants can either download the DS-5504 from the internet or obtain one from an Acceptance Facility/Passport Agency. The form must be completed, signed, and submitted along with the applicant's valid U.S. passport and supporting documents for corrective action.
The Privacy Act statement has been amended to clarify that an applicant's failure to provide his or her Social Security number may result in the denial of an application, consistent with Section 32101 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94) which authorizes the Department to deny U.S. passport applications when the applicant failed to include his or her Social Security number. It also makes clear that failure to include one's Social Security number may also subject the applicant to a penalty enforced by the International Revenue Service. These requirements and the underlying legal authorities are further described on page 3 of the instructions titled “Federal Tax Law” which has also been amended to include a reference to Public Law 114-94.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice.
The Board is publishing, and providing the public an opportunity to comment on, the 2015 weighted average state tax rates for each Class I railroad, as calculated by the Association of American Railroads (AAR), for use in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method (RSAM).
Comments are due by July 6, 2016. If any comment opposing AAR's calculation is filed, AAR's reply will be due by July 26, 2016. If no comments are filed by the due date, AAR's calculation of the 2015 weighted average state tax rates will be automatically adopted by the Board, effective July 7, 2016.
Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site at
Nathaniel Bawcombe, (202) 245-0376. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
The RSAM figure is one of three benchmarks that together are used to determine the reasonableness of a challenged rate under the Board's
In
Any party wishing to comment on AAR's calculation of the 2015 weighted average state tax rates should file a comment by July 6, 2016.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice; correction.
The Tennessee Valley Authority published a document in the
Christopher A. Marsalis, (865) 632-2467 or by email at
In the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property at the Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, Iowa.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, Iowa, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2016.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Polk County Aviation Authority, Jeff Wangsness, President, C/O Brick Gentry P.C. 6701 Westown Parkway Suite 100, West Des Moines, IA 50266, 515-274-1450.
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2644,
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 10.42 acres of airport property at the Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On March 16, 2016, the Airport Authority at the Ankeny Regional Airport requested from the FAA that approximately 10.42 acres of property be released for sale to Mr. and Mrs. Darryl Bresson for use as an agriculture operation with future business prospects. On March 16, 2016, the FAA determined that the request to
The following is a brief overview of the request:
Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV) is proposing the release of one parcel, of 10.42 acres, more or less. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project for general aviation facilities at the Ankeny Regional Airport.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at Ralph Wenz Field under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2016.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. James C. Parker, Jr., Airport Manager, Ralph Wenz Field, Pinedale, Wyoming, at the following address: Mr. James C. Parker, Jr., Airport Manager, Ralph Wenz Field, P.O. Box 1766, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941.
Mr. Jesse Lyman, Wyoming State Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at Ralph Wenz Field under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
On May 23, 2016, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Ralph Wenz Field submitted by The Town of Pinedale meets the procedural requirements of the FAA. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than July 6, 2016.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Town of Pinedale, Wyoming, is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on a 0.76 acre parcel of property acquired by the Town of Pinedale on November 9, 2004, with the assistance of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant No. 3-56-0021-11. This parcel is outside of the Runway Protection Zone and is considered a non-economic remnant. The parcel in question has been part of a long-standing lawsuit regarding a property line dispute with the adjacent landowners. A settlement has been reviewed and approved by the district court to deed this parcel of land back to the adjacent landowners. As the property was purchased with AIP funds, the fair market value of the property will be reinvested in future AIP eligible projects and will be used to offset future AIP grants.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Ralph Wenz Field.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 40 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on February 17, 2016. The exemptions expire on February 17, 2018.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On January 14, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 40 individuals and requested comments from the public (81 FR 1987. The public comment period closed on February 16, 2016, and 1 comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 40 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 40 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 14, 2016,
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Jayme Dehner stated that, in her opinion, drivers with diabetes manage their health better than other drivers and is in favor of granting the exemptions.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Notice and request for comments .
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments should be submitted on or before July 6, 2016.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Ritchie Huang, Crash Avoidance and Electronic Controls Division, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-5586; Facsimile: (202) 366-8546; email address:
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces that the following information collection request has been forwarded to OMB. In the October 29, 2015
CWSs are available as both options from OEMs and as aftermarket/retrofit devices. While there are certain similarities between offerings within a particular CWS product class (
NHTSA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; request for comments.
Section 70103 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), which was established in section 8001 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, directs the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy (Under Secretary) to establish a National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) to: (1) Assist States in strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for the efficient movement of freight on the NMFN; (2) inform freight transportation planning; (3) assist in the prioritization of Federal investment; and (4) assess and support Federal investments to achieve the national multimodal freight policy goals described in section 70101(b) of title 49, U.S.C., and the national highway freight program goals described in section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.
Within 180 days of the enactment of the FAST Act, the Under Secretary is directed to establish an Interim NMFN. This notice establishes an Interim NMFN per the statutory requirements and solicits public comment to help inform the Final NMFN that will be designated by December 4, 2017, per the statutory requirement.
Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016 to receive consideration by DOT with respect to the final designation of the NMFN.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
•
Ryan Endorf, 202-366-4835 or email
In a transportation law passed in July, 2012—the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)—Congress directed DOT to develop a National Freight Strategic Plan and a National Freight Network (NFN) of highways. The NFN was to include the designation of a Primary Freight Network (PFN) of 27,000 centerline miles. On November 19, 2013, DOT published a draft PFN for comment in the
In October 2015, DOT released a draft Multimodal Freight Network (MFN) as part of its draft National Freight Strategic Plan (NFSP).
Section 70103 of title 49, U.S.C., which was established in section 8001 of the FAST Act, directs the Under Secretary to establish a NMFN that will be used to: (1) Assist States in strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for the efficient movement of freight on the NMFN; (2) inform freight transportation planning; (3) assist in the prioritization of Federal investment; and (4) assess and support Federal investments to achieve the national multimodal freight policy goals described in section 70101(b) of title 49, U.S.C., and the national highway freight program goals described in section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.
Within 180 days of the enactment of the FAST Act, the Under Secretary is directed to establish an Interim NMFN that includes the following components: (1) The National Highway Freight Network (NHFN), as established under section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.; (2) the freight rail systems of Class I railroads as designated by the Surface Transportation Board; (3) the public ports of the United States that have total annual foreign and domestic trade of at least 2,000,000 short tons, as identified by the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), using the data from the latest year for which such data are available; (4) the inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States, as described in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804); (5) the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and coastal and ocean routes along which domestic freight is transported; (6) the 50 airports
Not later than 1 year after the enactment of the FAST Act, the Under Secretary is directed, after soliciting input from stakeholders
The NHFN is established under 23 U.S.C. 167 and includes: (1) The Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS), which Congress designated in the FAST Act to replace the PFN (the new PHFS is a 41,518-mile network identified during the designation process for the PFN); (2) the critical rural freight corridors established under 23 U.S.C. 167(e); (3) the critical urban freight corridors established under 23 U.S.C. 167(f); and (4) the portions of the Interstate System not designated as part of the PHFS. States have the authority to designate critical rural freight corridors. Critical urban freight corridors may be designated by the relevant States or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs), in consultation with each other, depending on population size. As no State or MPO has yet designated a critical rural or urban freight corridor as part of the NHFN, the highway portion of the Interim NMFN will consist of the 41,518-mile PHFS and the other portions of the Interstate System not designated as part of the PHFS. The current total mileage of the NHFN shown on the maps for the Interim NMFN is 51,029 miles, however, this mileage will continue to fluctuate as there are some Interstate System segments that have been recently constructed or converted to Interstate System designation and, as such, are automatically included in the NHFN. These additional segments are not yet shown on our NHFN maps or calculated in the 51,029 miles.
As specified by the FAST Act, the Interim NMFN contains the freight rail systems of the Class I railroads as designated by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), totaling more than 95,000 route miles. Compared to the draft MFN released by DOT in October 2015, the rail network provided for in the FAST Act is much more expansive. Additionally, the statute specifically references other strategic freight assets, including other intermodal facilities and freight rail lines of Class II and Class III railroads, designated by the Under Secretary as critical to interstate commerce.
DOT has included (as strategic freight assets) routes critical to interstate commerce which encompassed any rail connections to ports that are included on the Interim NMFN. In addition, those routes critical to national defense, which are designated by the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET), are included in the Interim NMFN. These additional designations, which draw extensively from the Class II and Class III railroads, are necessary to promote network connectivity, which is vital for interstate commerce and national defense. The designation of the Interim NMFN consists of 104,296 rail route miles, which includes the entire Class I network of 95,200 route miles and 9,096 route miles of Class II and Class III railroad.
Similarly, the 116 ports listed for the Interim NMFN exceed the 78 ports identified in the October 2015 draft MFN proposed by DOT. Using the latest available data obtained from the USACE's Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (calendar year 2014), DOT has determined that 113 U.S. ports satisfy the 2,000,000 short ton threshold criterion specified in the FAST Act.
The maritime component of the Interim NMFN also includes navigable waterways that are used to transport domestic and international freight. The locations and dimensions of these waterways are based on data contained in the published USACE Waterway Network files (Waterway Network).
In all cases, links between designated Interim NMFN ports and the Waterway Network are provided to show continuity. In total, the Interim NMFN includes approximately 26,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway, coastal, and open-ocean waterways. This total does not include the waterway mileage in international waters or foreign waters from the U.S. Mainland to our nation's non-contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii) or to the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and other locations, although waterway routes at and around these locations are included where significant domestic trade takes place.
Collectively, the routes described above also encompass the entire America's Marine Highways route system as designated by the Secretary of Transportation (46 U.S.C. 55601).
In addition, DOT notes that the section 70103 of the FAST Act requires the Interim NMFN to include the top 50 airports by landed weight as identified by the FAA. The FAA identified the top 50 airports by landed weight using the Air Carrier Activity Information System (ACAIS), an FAA database that reflects the certificated maximum gross landed weight of all-cargo aircraft as required by 49 U.S.C. 47102(10) and 49 U.S.C. 47114(2). The ACAIS data, however, do not reflect the actual weight of the cargo being transported on all-cargo aircraft and do not account for other manner of cargo operations, such as belly cargo on passenger operations.
Because the FAA's ACAIS database excludes belly cargo, which is a significant source of freight movement, DOT also considered Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data that capture cargo weight reported on DOT Form 41, Schedules T-100 [U.S. carriers] and T-100(f) [foreign carriers], which reflects the weight of cargo being transported on both passenger and cargo aircraft.
When considering the top 50 airports in the BTS' Form 41 market data for 2014 (excluding mail and attributing weight by destination to be consistent with the cargo data in ACAIS), there are a total of six airports that are not in the top 50 using the FAA's ACAIS database for 2014, presumably because these airports receive a large amount of belly cargo activity that is not captured by the FAA's ACAIS database.
DOT has included these six additional airports on the Interim NMFN as “other strategic freight assets” that are critical to the movement of interstate commerce. Including these six airports on the Interim NMFN provides a more complete picture of how air freight (including belly cargo) is moving through the airports in the United States.
1. Origins and destinations of freight movement within, to, and from the United States;
2. Volume, value, tonnage, and the strategic importance of freight;
3. Access to border crossings, airports, seaports, and pipelines;
4. Economic factors, including balance of trade;
5. Access to major areas for manufacturing, agriculture, or natural resources;
6. Access to energy exploration, development, installation, and production areas;
7. Intermodal links and intersections that promote connectivity;
8. Freight choke points and other impediments contributing to significant measurable congestion, delay in freight movement, or inefficient modal connections;
9. Impacts on all freight transportation modes and modes that share significant freight infrastructure;
10. Facilities and transportation corridors identified by a multi-State coalition, a State, a State freight advisory committee, or an MPO, using national or local data, as having critical freight importance to the region;
11. Major distribution centers, inland intermodal facilities, and first- and last-mile facilities;
12. The significance of goods movement, including consideration of global and domestic supply chains.
During this designation process, the Under Secretary shall: (1) Use, to the extent practicable, measurable data to assess the significance of goods movement, including the consideration of points of origin, destinations, and linking components of the United States global and domestic supply chains; (2) consider the 12 factors listed above and any changes in the economy that affect freight transportation network demand; and (3) provide the States with an opportunity to submit proposed designations.
DOT seeks comments on corridors or facilities (across all modes) not included in the Interim NMFN that address one or more of the 12 factors noted above, including a discussion of why additional components should be considered for inclusion on the Final NMFN. In particular, DOT seeks public comment on intermodal facilities and border crossings that are not included on the Interim NMFN. DOT requests that any proposed corridors or facilities be supported with data from the most
DOT also seeks input on whether the 65,000-mile highway network included in the draft MFN released in October 2015 (as part of the draft NFSP)—with or without additional modification for STRAHNET, border crossings, urban or rural connectors, etc.—should be designated as the Final highway portion of the NMFN instead of the highway portion of the Interim NMFN. When proposed last fall, the draft MFN was uncapped and data-driven, featured a lower threshold for truck volumes to capture last and first mile connectors and reflected improved linkages to intermodal facilities compared to the PHFS in the NHFN. The additional continuity and connectivity of the 65,000-miles of the highway portion of the draft MFN provides a more complete representation of the multimodal system that is required to efficiently and effectively move freight in the U.S. For more information on the characteristics and methodology of the larger draft MFN, see the following links to maps, draft MFN, and
In this approach, FRA used the 2013 Carload Waybill Sample and the designated STRACNET coded within the FRA network to determine the rail components of the draft MFN map. Based on the Waybill Sample, FRA developed the following three categories of rail service for potential inclusion in the draft MFN:
• Intermodal rail traffic, which includes trailer on flatcar, container on flatcar, and rail double stack;
• Bulk shipments, which FRA defined to include all non-intermodal moves that consisted of 50 cars or more of the same commodity on the same waybill;
• General merchandise shipments, which include moves that are not intermodal and did not meet the bulk traffic criteria.
All intermodal rail routes are included in the draft MFN. For bulk and general merchandise shipments, FRA allocated the waybill data into three volume tiers and relied on the natural breaks in the volume data to determine those parts of the network that had the greatest volumes, removing those lines on the network with the lowest tier of tons for bulk and general merchandise. All STRACNET lines were included in the draft rail MFN map.
The rail component of the draft MFN map consists of 49,900 route miles, representing 35 percent of the nation's rail route miles. Of this, approximately 94 percent belong to Class I railroads, with the balance belonging to Class II and Class III railroads. Collectively, the rail routes on the draft MFN map account for 60 percent of all rail freight traffic as measured by tons of freight.
FRA also used the 2013 Surface Transportation Board Carload Waybill Sample to determine which rail connectors (interchange points with other modes) should be identified within the draft MFN map. FRA selected the top 50 bulk origination/destination markets (100 locations) and the top 25 intermodal origination/destination markets (50 locations). Since there are duplicates in the 150 total locations, FRA consolidated these to 53 unique locations. This process gave FRA a narrow accounting of the rail connectors, since the waybill sample is not totally structured to identify multimodal connectors. DOT is seeking public comment on any other key factors that should be considered to better capture and identify freight moving on multiple modes. DOT seeks public input on FRA's methodology to structure the rail component of the Final NMFN. This approach would designate routes based primarily on traffic density and volume. Commenters should also address what density levels should be used to determine those lines which should be included in the network. Commenters should also consider Class II and Class III lines with particular attention focused on the statutory language identifying those lines that are critical to interstate commerce. Commenters should also note what criteria are used for determining critical to interstate commerce. Finally, DOT requests alternative methodologies and/or datasets to identify rail lines and the rail connection locations to construct a more robust rail component of the NMFN.
DOT seeks public input regarding the 2,000,000 short ton and strategic port standards that DOT was required to use as the selection criteria for U.S. ports in the Interim NMFN. Specifically, DOT requests comment on whether this standard should be maintained in the Final NMFN or if there are other selection criteria that would more appropriately identify commercial ports that are critical to the NMFN. DOT notes that special considerations (such as status as strategic ports or other ports critical to moving strategic freight assets efficiently by water, such as fuel or energy commodities) will be considered. For instance, DOT requests assistance in identifying any ports that are unique in handling specialty cargoes critical to economic competitiveness and resilience. DOT recognizes that some ports that fall below the 2 million short ton threshold may become critical to movement of goods in times of national emergency and, in those times, could
For determining how to supplement the interim network, several choices were made regarding the BTS data:
• DOT selected market data rather than segment data. We believe that market data provide a better sense of cargo moving on and off airports, which is appropriate for an intermodal network.
• DOT selected destination (landed) weight rather than origin weight, in order to be consistent with the type of data required in the interim network.
• DOT selected cargo weight only, excluding mail.
Considering the data sources used to determine the interim network, DOT seeks public input regarding what data specifically should be considered for the Final NMFN. Should DOT use only the BTS data? Should DOT continue to combine the BTS data with the ACAIS data? DOT also requests comment on additional methodologies and data sources that have not been considered for the Interim NMFN.
1. Is a rural principal arterial;
2. Provides access or service to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas;
3. Provides access or service to—
a. A grain elevator;
b. An agricultural facility;
c. A mining facility;
d. A forestry facility; or
e. An intermodal facility;
4. Connects to an international port of entry;
5. Provides access to a significant air, rail, water, or other freight facility in the State; or
6. Has been determined by the State to be vital to improving the efficient movement of freight of importance to the economy of the State.
There is no limitation that such critical rural freight facilities or corridors must be highways. Each State may propose additional designations that are up to 20 percent of the total mileage of modal routes designated by the Under Secretary for the State. For the purposes of this first designation, the “total mileage” will be the total mileage in each State on the Interim NMFN. If a State wishes to propose a designation of a future Interstate or NHS route, it should provide information sufficient to demonstrate that the route is critical to the future efficient movement of goods and that the State will make such designation before the end of this year (when the Final NMFN is due). States should submit a list of additional designations to the Under Secretary as part of the public comment process described below. Each State submitting additional designations should also certify that the State has satisfied the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(4) and that each proposed designation addresses one or more of the factors listed in 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(2) (also listed above).
The Final NMFN will be designated not later than December 4, 2016 by the Under Secretary per the statutory requirement.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury (“Department” or “Treasury”) called for the submission of Large Position Reports by those entities whose positions in the 1
Large Position Reports must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 8, 2016.
The reports must be submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Government Securities Dealer Statistics Unit, 4th Floor, 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045; or faxed to 212-720-8707.
Lori Santamorena, Kurt Eidemiller, or Kevin Hawkins; Government Securities Regulations Staff, Department of the Treasury, at 202-504-3632.
In a press release issued on June 1, 2016, and in this
The 1
The press release, a copy of a sample Large Position Report, which appears in Appendix B of the rules at 17 CFR part 420, and supplementary formula guidance are available at
Questions about Treasury's large position reporting rules should be directed to Treasury's Government Securities Regulations Staff at (202) 504-3632. Questions regarding the method of submission of Large Position Reports should be directed to the Government Securities Dealer Statistics Unit of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at (212) 720-7993 or (212) 720-8107.
The collection of large position information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act under OMB Control Number 1530-0064.
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 July 12-13, 2016, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Boston Healthcare System—West Roxbury Campus, 1400 VFW Parkway, West Roxbury, MA 02132.
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 July 12, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect Veteran privacy as the Committee tours the VA Boston Healthcare System—Jamaica Plain Division, 150 S. Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02130. From 10:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., the Committee will reconvene in an open session to discuss the progress on and the integration of the work in the five key MyVA work streams—Veteran Experience (explaining the efforts conducted to improve the Veteran's experience), Employees Experience, Support Services Excellence (such as information technology, human resources, and finance), Performance Improvement (projects undertaken to date and those upcoming), and VA Strategic Partnerships.
On July 13, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., the Committee will meet at the VA Boston Healthcare System—West Roxbury Campus, 1400 VFW Parkway, West Roxbury, MA 02132, 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.
Portions of these visits are closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Exemption 6 permits to Committee to close those portions of a meeting that is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. During the closed sessions, the Committee will discuss VA beneficiary and patient information in which there is a clear unwarranted invasion of the Veteran or beneficiary privacy.
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
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising the rule for the African elephant promulgated under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), to increase protection for African elephants in response to the alarming rise in poaching to fuel the growing illegal trade in ivory. The African elephant (
This rule is effective July 6, 2016.
Craig Hoover, Chief, Division of Management Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: IA; Falls Church, VA 22041 (telephone, (703) 358-2093).
When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA gives discretion to the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations that he or she “deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.” In response to an unprecedented increase in poaching of elephants across Africa and the escalation of the illegal trade in ivory, we reevaluated the provisions of the existing ESA 4(d) rule for the African elephant, and, on July 29, 2015, we published a proposed rule to revise the 4(d) rule (80 FR 45154). We are revising the 4(d) rule by adopting measures that are necessary and advisable for the current conservation needs of the species, based on our evaluation of the current threats to the African elephant and the comments received from the public. The poaching crisis is driven by demand for elephant ivory. This final rule will allow us to more strictly regulate trade in African elephant ivory and help to ensure that the U.S. ivory market is not contributing to the poaching of elephants in Africa. This action is consistent with recommendations adopted by the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or the Convention) in March 2013 to help curb the illegal killing of elephants and illegal trade in ivory, issuance of Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking in July 2013, and the stated priorities in the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, issued by President Obama in February 2014.
We are revising the 4(d) rule for the African elephant to increase protection and benefit the conservation of African elephants by more strictly controlling U.S. trade in ivory, without unnecessarily restricting activities that have no conservation effect or are strictly regulated under other law. The final rule prohibits import and export of African elephant ivory with limited exceptions for: Musical instruments, items that are part of a traveling exhibition, and items that are part of a household move or inheritance when specific criteria are met; and ivory for law enforcement or genuine scientific purposes. With regard to import, these exceptions remain prohibited under the African Elephant Conservation Act (AfECA) import moratorium (54 FR 24758, June 9, 1989). However, under Director's Order 210, as amended on May 15, 2014, as a matter of law enforcement discretion, the Service will not enforce the AfECA moratorium with respect to these limited exceptions. Antiques (as defined under section 10(h) of the ESA) are not subject to the provisions of this rule. Antiques containing or consisting of ivory may, therefore, be imported into or exported from the United States without a threatened species permit issued under § 17.32, provided the requirements of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met. However, import of most African elephant ivory, including antique ivory, remains prohibited under the AfECA import moratorium. This final rule allows for import of sport-hunted trophies but limits the number of sport-hunted African elephant trophies imported into the United States to two per hunter per year. The prohibition on export of raw ivory in the current 4(d) rule is maintained in the final rule. Interstate and foreign commerce in African elephant ivory is prohibited by the final rule except for items that qualify as ESA antiques and certain manufactured or handcrafted items that contain a small (
The final rule prohibits take of live African elephants in the United States, which will help to ensure that elephants held in captivity receive an appropriate standard of care. As stated in the proposed rule (80 FR 45154, July 29, 2015), while the taking of live African elephants held in captivity within the United States or being transported is not a threat to the species, including a prohibition against take, even for species that are not native to the United States, is a standard protection for threatened species and ensures an adequate level of care for wildlife held in captivity. (This prohibition is the same as the prohibition on take of Asian elephants, which has been in place since 1976 when the Asian elephant was listed under the ESA.) Trade in live African elephants and African elephant parts and products other than ivory is allowed under the final rule provided the requirements in 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met.
The Service reevaluated U.S. domestic controls, given the current poaching crisis in Africa and the associated increase in illegal trade in ivory, recent CITES recommendations, and evidence that substantial quantities of illegal ivory are making their way into U.S. markets. We determined that it is appropriate to take certain regulatory actions, including revision of the 4(d) rule as necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species and to include certain prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) of the ESA, to more strictly regulate U.S. trade in ivory. The final rule will regulate import, export, and commercial use of African elephant ivory and sport-hunted trophies and appropriately protect live elephants within the United States, while including certain limited exceptions for items and activities that we do not believe, based on all available evidence, are contributing to the poaching of elephants in Africa, including for certain manufactured or handcrafted items containing ivory that meet specific criteria. The final rule will
This final rule is consistent with Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking signed by President Obama on July 1, 2013, to “address the significant effects of wildlife trafficking on the national interests of the United States.” The Executive Order calls on executive departments and agencies to take all appropriate actions within their authority to “enhance domestic efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, to assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat wildlife trafficking, and to assist in combating transnational organized crime.” Increased control of the U.S. market for elephant ivory is also among the administrative actions called for in the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, issued by President Obama on February 11, 2014. Director's Order No. 210, issued by the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, established policy and procedures for the Service to follow in implementing the National Strategy with regard to trade in African elephant ivory and parts and products of other ESA-listed species.
In the United States, the African elephant is primarily protected and managed under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The ESA does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Secretary of the Interior is given the discretion to issue such regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA for endangered species. Exercising this discretion under section 4(d), the Service has developed general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and established a permitting process for specified exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) that apply to most threatened species. Permits issued under 50 CFR 17.32 must be for “Scientific purposes, or the enhancement of propagation or survival, or economic hardship, or zoological exhibition, or educational purposes, or incidental taking, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the [ESA].”
Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Service may also develop specific prohibitions and exceptions tailored to the particular conservation needs of a threatened species. In such cases, the Service issues a 4(d) rule that may include some of the prohibitions and authorizations set out at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but that also may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32.
Import and export of CITES species is prohibited unless accompanied by any required CITES documents. Documentation requirements vary depending on the appendix in which the species or population is listed and other factors. CITES documents cannot be issued until specific biological and legal findings have been made. CITES does not regulate take or domestic trade of listed species. It contributes to the conservation of listed species by regulating international trade and, in order to make the findings necessary for issuance of CITES permits, encouraging assessment and analysis of the population status of species in trade and the effects of international trade on wild populations.
In addition to authorizing establishment of the moratoria and prohibiting any import in violation of the terms of any moratorium, the AfECA prohibits: The import of raw African elephant ivory from any country that is not a range country; the import of raw or worked ivory exported from a range country in violation of that country's laws or applicable CITES programs; the import of worked ivory, other than certain personal effects, unless the exporting country has determined that the ivory was legally acquired; and the export of all raw (but not worked) African elephant ivory. While the AfECA comprehensively addresses the import of ivory into the United States, it does not address other uses of ivory or African elephant specimens other than ivory and sport-hunted trophies. The AfECA does not regulate the use of ivory within the United States and,
Ghana first listed the African elephant in CITES Appendix III on February 26, 1976. Later that year, the CITES Parties agreed to add African elephants to Appendix II, effective February 4, 1977. In October 1989, all populations of African elephants were transferred from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I (effective in January 1990), which ended much of the legal commercial trade in African elephant ivory.
In 1997, based on proposals submitted by Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe and the report of a Panel of Experts (which concluded, among other things, that populations in these countries were stable or increasing and that poaching pressure was low), the CITES Parties agreed to transfer the African elephant populations in these three countries to CITES Appendix II. The Appendix-II listing included an annotation that allowed noncommercial export of hunting trophies, export of live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations, export of hides from Zimbabwe, and noncommercial export of leather goods and some ivory carvings from Zimbabwe. It also allowed for a one-time export of raw ivory to Japan (which took place in 1999), once certain conditions had been met. All other African elephant specimens from these three countries were deemed to be specimens of a species listed in Appendix I and regulated accordingly.
The African elephant population of South Africa was transferred from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II in 2000, with an annotation that allowed trade in hunting trophies for noncommercial purposes, trade in live animals for reintroduction purposes, and trade in hides and leather goods. At that time, the Panel of Experts reviewing South Africa's proposal concluded, among other things, that South Africa's elephant population was increasing, that there were no apparent threats to the status of the population, and that the country's anti-poaching measures were “extremely effective.” Since then, the CITES Parties have revised the Appendix-II listing annotation three times. The current annotation, in place since 2007, covers the Appendix-II populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe and allows export of: Sport-hunted trophies for noncommercial purposes; live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; hides; hair; certain ivory carvings from Namibia and Zimbabwe for noncommercial purposes; and a one-time export of specific quantities of raw ivory, once certain conditions had been met (this export, to China and Japan, took place in 2009). As in previous versions of the annotation, all other African elephant specimens from these four populations are deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them is regulated accordingly.
The African elephant was listed as threatened under the ESA, effective June 11, 1978 (43 FR 20499, May 12, 1978). A review of the status of the species at that time showed that the African elephant was declining in many parts of its range and that habitat loss, illegal killing of elephants for their ivory, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms were factors contributing to the decline. At the same time the African elephant was designated as a threatened species, the Service promulgated a 4(d) rule to regulate import and certain interstate commerce of the species in the United States (43 FR 20499, May 12, 1978).
The 1978 4(d) rule for the African elephant stated that the prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.31 applied to any African elephant, alive or dead, and to any part, product, or offspring thereof, with certain exceptions. Specifically, under the 1978 rule, the prohibition at 50 CFR 17.31 against importation did not apply to African elephant specimens that had originated in the wild in a country that was a Party to CITES if the specimens had been exported or re-exported in accordance with Article IV of the Convention, and had remained in customs control in any country not party to the Convention that they transited
The 4(d) rule has been amended twice in response to changes in the status of African elephants and the illegal trade in elephant ivory, and to more closely align U.S. requirements with actions taken by the CITES Parties. On July 20, 1982, the Service amended the 4(d) rule for the African elephant (47 FR 31384) to ease restrictions on domestic activities and to more closely align its requirements with provisions in CITES Resolution Conf. 3.12,
Following enactment of the AfECA (in October 1988), the Service established, on December 27, 1988, a moratorium on the import into the United States of African elephant ivory from countries that were not parties to CITES (53 FR 52242). On February 24, 1989, the Service established a second moratorium on all ivory imports into the United States from Somalia (54 FR 8008). On June 9, 1989, the Service put in place the current moratorium, which bans the import of ivory other than sport-hunted trophies from both range and intermediary countries (54 FR 24758).
The 4(d) rule was revised on August 10, 1992 (57 FR 35473), following establishment of the 1989 moratorium under the AfECA on the import of African elephant ivory into the United States, and again on June 26, 2014 (79 FR 30400, May 27, 2014), associated with the update of U.S. CITES implementing regulations. In the 2014 revision of the 4(d) rule, we removed the CITES marking requirements for African elephant sport-hunted trophies. At the same time, these marking requirements were updated and incorporated into our CITES regulations at 50 CFR 23.74. The purpose of this change was to make clear what is required under CITES (at 50 CFR part 23) for trade in sport-hunted trophies and what is required under the ESA (at 50 CFR part 17).
We received more than 1,349,000 comments in response to the proposed rule, including eight petitions with more than 1,342,000 signatures (one petition also included drawings by children). All eight petitions were in strong support of strengthening elephant ivory regulatory controls. Counting each of the petitions as one substantive comment, about 500 of the comments received were substantive. We received comments from individuals, organizations, and one State natural resource agency, including substantive comments from: Musicians, musical instrument manufacturers, and music organizations; antiques dealers (including auction houses) and collectors; museums and museum groups; hunting groups and knife and gun rights organizations; scrimshanders and other artisans working with ivory; a State natural resource agency; conservation/environmental nongovernmental organizations; organizations dedicated to promoting trade in ivory; and concerned citizens.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Additionally, we have clarified in § 17.40(e)(9) that ESA antiques are exempt from the provisions of this 4(d) rule. In that same paragraph, we have also pointed to the provisions and prohibitions of the AfECA, which apply regardless of the age of the item. So, although we cannot and have not in this 4(d) rule prohibited import of African elephant ivory that qualifies as an antique under the ESA, the import of antique ivory is prohibited under the AfECA moratorium as established in our notice issued on June 9, 1989 (54 FR 24758). With regard to sale of antique ivory within the United States, Appendix 1 to Director's Order 210 clarifies how the Service implements the ESA antiques exception. Appendix 1 reminds the reader that the ESA allows the import and other activities without an ESA permit of an item that: (a) Is not less than 100 years of age; (b) is composed in whole or in part of any endangered species or threatened species listed under section 1533 of the Act; (c) has not been repaired or modified with any part of any such species on or after December 28, 1973; and (d) is entered at a port designated for the import of ESA antiques. The Appendix further clarifies that the Service will not take enforcement action against items that meet the first three elements (a, b, and c) above and were imported prior to September 22, 1982 (when the ESA antique ports were designated) or were created in the United States and never imported. Appendix 1 also reminds the reader that anyone claiming the benefit of an exemption from ESA prohibitions has the burden of proving that the exemption is applicable.
(4)
(5)
(6)
As we indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule, we are limiting the number of sport-hunted African elephant trophies that may be imported into the United States to address a small number of circumstances in which U.S. hunters have participated in elephant culling operations and imported, as sport-hunted trophies, a large number of elephant tusks from animals taken as part of the cull. This practice has resulted, in some cases, in the import of commercial quantities of ivory as sport-hunted trophies. Sport hunting is meant to be a personal, noncommercial activity, and engaging in hunting that results in acquiring quantities of ivory that exceed what would reasonably be expected for personal use and enjoyment is inconsistent with sport hunting as a noncommercial activity. In evaluating an appropriate limit for personal use, we considered actions taken by the CITES Parties in recognition of the need to ensure that imports of certain other hunting trophies are for personal use only. In three different resolutions, the CITES Parties have agreed to limit annual imports of hunting trophies of leopards (no more than two), markhor (no more than one), and black rhinoceros (no more than one). All three of the resolutions containing these annual import limits (Resolution Conf. 10.14 (Rev. CoP16),
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
Lindsey et al. (2007), in their paper on the economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa, state their belief that, from a conservation perspective, “the provision of incentives which promote wildlife as a land use is the single most important contribution of the trophy hunting industry.” In addition, they note that trophy hunting generates revenues in areas where alternatives, such as ecotourism, may not be viable. More recently, Di Minin et al. (2016) assert that trophy hunting “strongly contributes” to conservation in sub-Saharan Africa, where large areas currently allocated to use for trophy hunting support important biodiversity. They also note that, if revenue cannot be generated from trophy hunting, these natural habitats will be converted to other forms of land use. While recognizing that the degree to which trophy hunting contributes to conservation is a subject of debate, Mallon (2013), in his report on trophy hunting of CITES-listed species in Central Asia, states that “well‐run hunting concessions have an economic interest in maintaining the resource (
We are, of course, aware that not all trophy hunting is part of a well-managed, well-run program, and we evaluate import of sport-hunted trophies carefully to ensure that all CITES and ESA requirements are met. As noted previously, the Service currently does not allow import of sport-hunted
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
In 1997 and 2000, when the four populations of African elephants were transferred from CITES Appendix I to CITES Appendix II, we retained the requirement for ESA enhancement findings prior to the import of sport-hunted trophies. We amended the African elephant 4(d) rule in June of 2014, again maintaining the requirement for an ESA enhancement finding prior to allowing the import of African
The overall conservation status of African elephants has deteriorated in the years following the transfer of the four populations of African elephants to CITES Appendix II. The Service made a similar determination regarding the need for import permits for sport-hunted trophies of Appendix-II argali (
As stated previously, authorizing import of all sport-hunted trophies through threatened species enhancement permits will allow us to more carefully evaluate trophy imports in accordance with legal standards and the conservation needs of the species. For example, as we noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the issuance of threatened species enhancement permits under 50 CFR 17.32 would mean that the standards under 50 CFR part 13 would also be in effect, such as the requirement that an applicant submit complete and accurate information during the application process and the ability of the Service to deny permits in situations where the applicant has been assessed a civil or criminal penalty under certain circumstances, failed to disclose material information, or made false statements. Therefore, we have determined that the additional safeguard of requiring the issuance of threatened species enhancement permits under 50 CFR 17.32 prior to the import of sport-hunted African elephant trophies is warranted, and we are consciously supplanting the provisions of section 9(c)(2) of the ESA that would otherwise apply.
(18)
Requiring issuance of a threatened species permit for import of all African elephant sport-hunted trophies (instead of only those from Appendix-I populations) will help us to more carefully evaluate trophy imports in accordance with legal standards and the conservation needs of the species and to ensure a conservation benefit. (See the response to (17), above.)
Some, including some conservation organizations, expressed their preference for a complete ban on domestic commerce, but recognized our rationale for this proposed exception and asserted that the requirements to qualify should not be weakened in any way. Many others appreciated a
(19)
(20)
Our law enforcement experience over the last 25 years has shown that the vast majority of items in the illegal ivory trade are either raw ivory (tusks and pieces of tusks) or manufactured pieces (mostly carvings) that are composed entirely or primarily of ivory. In the preamble to the proposed rule, we described the November 2013 “ivory crush” during which the Service destroyed six tons of seized ivory that represented over 25 years of law enforcement efforts to control illegal ivory trade in the United States. The six tons of contraband ivory that was destroyed did not include any items that would be covered by this exception. Ivory traffickers are not manufacturing items with small amounts of pre-Convention ivory or dealing in such items. Rather, because the incentive to deal in illegal ivory is economic, the trade focuses on raw ivory and large pieces of carved ivory from which the highest profits can be made. We also described, in the preamble to the proposed rule, the case involving a Philadelphia-based African art dealer, which included the seizure of approximately one ton of ivory. All of the seized ivory (which was subsequently destroyed in our 2015 ivory crush in Times Square) was in the form of whole ivory carvings and did not include any items that would qualify under the
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Criterion (ii) states that, for items located outside the United States, the ivory must have been removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976. In this situation, our CITES use-after-import provisions in 50 CFR 23.55 would not apply (since the ivory has not been imported into the United States). Any African elephant specimen removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976, is considered to be “pre-Convention” as it was acquired before it was subject to the provisions of CITES. The concept of pre-Convention CITES specimens and the process for authorizing international trade of CITES pre-Convention specimens is familiar to and widely understood by the 182 Parties to CITES. Therefore, we consider that use of the pre-Convention date as a qualifying factor for items located outside the United States is appropriate.
(26)
(27)
The commenters are correct that we chose the 200-gram limit because we believed it was large enough to accommodate most pianos and other musical instruments, as well as many other household and utilitarian items (such as baskets with ivory trim, teapots with ivory insulators, knives and guns with ivory grips, some canes and walking sticks with ivory inlay or other decoration, and measuring tools with ivory trim or decoration), but also because it was small enough to ensure that we were not allowing commercialization of substantial volumes of ivory. Because we proposed the 200-gram limit with a particular suite of existing items in mind, including certain musical instruments, we already have a good understanding of the types of items that qualify for the
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
One commenter asked whether the Service intends to require scientific testing of all ivory. Another commenter stated that many types of forensic testing are expensive, often destructive to the object, and sometimes unavailable due to an object's small size. They noted, however, that an object whose ivory cannot be identified forensically may be identified through expert analysis of trade patterns for objects of that type, the maker of the object, and geomapping of the object. They urged us to make clear that both of these types of evidence (forensic and other expert analysis) are acceptable. Another commenter asked us to clarify that, with respect to manufactured items, contemporary evidence contained in catalogs, price lists, and similar materials showing that a particular item was not offered for sale after a given date would constitute evidence that the item was manufactured prior to that date. Some commenters provided information on nondestructive methods for determining age and species of ivory objects, including both scientific methods and methodologies employed by art historians.
With regard to the criteria for meeting the
We will not require ivory components to be removed from an item to be weighed. Because we proposed the 200-gram limit with a particular suite of existing items in mind, including certain musical instruments, knife and gun grips, and certain household and decorative items, we already have a good understanding of the types of items that qualify for the
We realize that determining whether an object containing ivory complies with these requirements may sometimes be difficult for persons who are not ordinarily engaged in commercial trade of such articles. Our law enforcement focus under this rule will be to help eliminate elephant poaching by targeting persons engaged in or facilitating illegal ivory trade. While it is the responsibility of each citizen to understand and comply with the law, and that is our expectation with regard to this regulation, we do not foresee
We will provide additional guidance on the implementation of these criteria via our Web site, including how we will estimate the weight of the ivory contained in a manufactured or handcrafted item and how we will determine that an item is made “wholly or primarily” of ivory, prior to the effective date of this rule.
We have already provided guidance, in the appendix to Director's Order 210, regarding documentation to demonstrate that an item meets the definition of “antique” under the ESA. We will provide additional guidance to the regulated public regarding documentation and other evidence that may be used to demonstrate that an item meets the specific exceptions to the prohibitions in this rule. We will make that information available on our Web site in advance of the effective date of this rule.
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37) Many commenters asserted that ivory trafficking is primarily a problem in Asia and Africa, not here in the United States, and that the best way to protect African elephants is to step up enforcement and conservation efforts in Africa and in China. Some commenters cited analyses of CITES Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) data as evidence that the United States is not part of the problem.
(38)
(39)
A summary of his results, in the abstract section, includes the following: “In Los Angeles, between 77% and 90% of the ivory seen was likely illegal under California law (
We recognize Mr. Stiles' experience and expertise in investigating ivory markets around the world, and we recognize the difficulties associated with estimating the age or date of manufacture or import based on visual inspection. We do, in fact, recognize his conclusions to be rough estimates. That said, his studies provide additional evidence of the role of the United States in the illegal ivory trade.
(40)
We believe that the restrictions and exceptions in this rule are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the African elephant while not unnecessarily regulating or prohibiting certain activities that do not contribute to elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade.
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
Another paper on the scope of the antique ivory market in the United
One commenter asserted that “the vast majority of ivory antiques transactions are relatively small in value (less than $500)” and argued that requiring “onerous and prohibitively expensive documentation” would effectively prevent people from taking part in such transactions. These commenters, and others, asserted that the proposed rule would impose extremely onerous and unnecessary requirements on owners of ivory to demonstrate that an object satisfies the antiques exemption, which would largely destroy the exemption and render the vast majority of legitimate ivory antiques in the United States worthless.
While some commenters estimated the value and age of ivory in private household collections, this rule has no impact on private household collections unless and until they are sold. We agree that the majority of ivory antiques are small in value as stated by some commenters (less than $500 per item or $240 per item).
For the purposes of estimating the impacts of the rule, we assume that ivory (antique and non-antique) will continue to enter the legal market at the same rate as prior to this rule. Therefore, we disagree that between 1.5 million and 2.5 million ivory items enter commerce annually, as estimated by one commenter. Based on our review of data sources, the number of ivory items that are sold annually in the United States is closer to 89,000 items (see economic analysis for more information).
In our economic analysis, we estimate that sales in the domestic market average $88.8 million to $1.2 billion annually. For a conservative estimate of the domestic market analysis, we employ a lower bound of $992 per item (consistent with the online auction market average value) and an upper bound of $18,000 per item (which was the highest lot sold price in live auctions).
Based on the assumption that the proportion of the value of antique ivory items in domestic commerce resembles the export market (two percent), we estimate the rule to impact from $1.8 million to $23.4 million in interstate commerce of non-antiques. Therefore, this rule will not have an impact of billions of dollars, as some commenters have asserted.
We received a number of suggestions for the definition of “museum,” including the definition developed by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (found at 2 CFR 3187.3), the Institute of Museum and Library Services definition with some added provisions, and the definition used by the International Council of Museums, with an additional requirement that a museum must have been established for at least 10 years prior to its first attempt at interstate procurement of ivory. Some commenters urged us to defer this issue to a separate rulemaking and comment period; others believe such an exception should be included in this final rule.
(50)
Some commenters supported an exception for museums and urged us to consider such an exception to be expanded to include any entity that holds a Federal income tax exception under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, which would allow museums to acquire culturally significant items, churches to purchase used pipe organs from other churches, and orchestras to obtain instruments for their musicians.
Some commenters urged us to allow an exception not only for interstate
Other commenters expressed concern about a possible exemption for museums and noted that the range of entities considered to be “museums” is quite broad and includes a wide range of interests and purposes. Other commenters were strongly opposed to an exception to the prohibition on interstate commerce for museums. They stated their belief that it is unnecessary, given the antiques exception contained in the ESA and the
(51)
(52)
(53)
It seems these commenters would require the Service to predict exactly how many African elephants would be conserved before they believe they can meaningfully comment pursuant to the APA. A quantitative estimate of benefits is not necessary to satisfy the purposes of the ESA. The Service finds that provisions in this 4(d) rule are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the African elephant and has also included appropriate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. Thus, the final rule meets the standards under section 4(d). Moreover, E.O. 12866 recognizes that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify and instructs agencies to adopt regulations based on a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. We have made a reasoned determination based on a qualitative assessment of the rule's benefits.
(54)
DO 210 is a policy statement and not subject to the notice-and-comment procedures of the APA. Notice-and-comment procedures are required only under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553) for legislative rules with the force and effect of law; “interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization procedure, or practice” are exempted. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) ;
DO 210 “establishes policy and procedure for [Service] employees to implement the National Strategy as it relates to the trade in elephant ivory . . .” and, thus, falls squarely within the “General statements of policy” as defined in the
Further, under the Supreme Court's holding in
(55)
This 4(d) rule applies to all African elephants and their parts, including live and dead elephants, parts other than ivory, and products made from elephant parts other than ivory. Compared to the restrictions provided by statute and regulation for other ESA threatened species, this rule places relatively few restrictions on live elephants and parts and products other than ivory.
While the rule does restrict certain activities with elephant ivory, people who lawfully possesses African elephant ivory can continue to engage in many activities with their ivory. They can continue to possess their ivory. They can gift it or bequeath it to another person. They can sell it and engage in other commercial activities with the ivory within their State provided the commercial activity is allowed under other law. They can also import or export ivory, sell or offer for sale ivory in interstate or foreign commerce, and engage in other commercial activities in interstate or foreign commerce provided they meet the requirements of the rule, in most cases without first obtaining an ESA threatened species permit. The many unregulated activities that may continue under the rule with elephants and their parts and products, including ivory, as well as activities that would be allowed, provided that regulatory requirements are met, indicate that the rule proposes no significant takings implications.
Overall, this rule is comparable to provisions applicable to other commercially valuable threatened species. For nearly all other endangered and threatened species, practically all import, export, sale or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, and certain activities in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity are prohibited, unless the activity qualifies as a particular purpose and the person obtains an ESA permit. These standard, more stringent prohibitions under the ESA have never been successfully challenged as a Constitutional taking.
For example, in
(56)
(57)
Some commenters provided estimates of the value of antique ivory in personal collections (nearly $12 billion according to one document) and the number of Americans who own antique ivory (hundreds of thousands of households). (See
Some commenters provided information on the economic impact of the proposed rule on American craftsmen and artisans (See (32) above). We have used this information in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to describe the types of establishments that will be impacted by this rule. We used the data available to us, including the export data from our Office of Law Enforcement, to make reasonable assumptions to approximate the potential economic impact of the proposed rule, including impacts on interstate commerce. We evaluated the declared value of worked ivory exports during a recent 5-year period, which varied from $32.1 million to $175.7 million. The declared value of items containing African elephant ivory that were less than 100 years old (and, therefore, could not qualify as ESA antiques) ranged from $607,000 to $3.7 million annually during the same time period. As this rule will no longer allow the commercial export of non-antique ivory, we expect, based on the information available, that, on average, commercial export of worked ivory will decrease by about two percent.
With regard to the domestic market, while the final rule will result in prohibitions on certain activities in interstate and foreign commerce, it will have no impact on commercial activities within a State (intrastate commerce). Businesses will not be prohibited by the final rule from selling raw or worked ivory within the State in which they are located, unless prohibited under State law.
Under the final rule, certain commercial activities, such as sale in interstate or foreign commerce of raw ivory and non-antique worked ivory, with the exception of those items that qualify for the
Contrary to the commenter's claim that it cannot be true that we are taking this action to increase protection for African elephants, but that these actions will not have a significant impact on current legal trade, we believe that these actions will substantially impact our ability to effectively control trade and that will contribute to a reduction in illegal killing of elephants. As we described in the proposed rule, there is ample evidence that the United States continues to be a market for illegal trade and that a substantial amount of ivory currently available in the United States was illegally imported. These increased controls will lead to conservation benefits for African elephants by making
(58)
The commenter has pointed to the 24,730 businesses classified under the NAICS as either used merchandise stores or art dealers. This total number includes 19,793 used merchandise stores (NAICS code 453310), 74 percent of which are considered small businesses, and 4,937 art dealers (NAICS code 453920), 95 percent of which are considered small businesses. The NAICS defines these categories as follows:
Extrapolating data from market surveys conducted by Martin and Stiles in 2006 and Stiles in 2014, we estimate that this rule would impact 3,200 retail outlets selling ivory products nationwide (see economic analysis) and represent 12 percent of all used merchandise stores and art dealers. Under this rule, these retail outlets would incur costs of one percent or less of total sales (see Regulatory Flexibility Act section for more detail). The other five categories of businesses in Table 2 in the preamble to the proposed rule are: Musical instrument manufacturing; sporting and recreational goods and supplies merchant wholesalers; metal kitchen cookware, utensil, cutlery, and flatware (except precious) manufacturing; jewelry and silverware manufacturing; and all other miscellaneous wood product manufacturing. Another commenter estimated that there are about 300 people in the United States creating finished products using ivory components. Of these, the commenter estimated that about 15 individuals make 10 pool cues per year with ivory ferrules. This would translate to less than one percent of the industry “All other miscellaneous wood product manufacturing” (NAICS 321999). While the commenter did not provide data regarding the industries under which the remainder of the 300 establishments would be categorized, we can estimate that the potential number of establishments represents two percent of establishments in the affected industries (excluding Used Merchandise Stores) or three percent of establishments in the affected industries (excluding Used Merchandise Stores and Sporting and Recreational Goods Stores). The 2008 Martin and Stiles report estimated that there were 120 to 200 ivory craftsmen in the United States, which would represent one to two percent of establishments in the affected industries.
We recognize that we are unable to conclusively quantify the number of small businesses within the individual industries that would be affected by the rule. The final rule prohibits sale or offer for sale of ivory in interstate or foreign commerce and delivery, receipt, carrying, transport, or shipment of ivory in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, except for qualifying antiques and manufactured items that contain a small (
(59)
As noted in the proposed rule, on July 1, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The Executive Order calls on executive departments and agencies to take all appropriate actions within their authority to “enhance domestic efforts to combat
Multiple U.S. Government agencies are involved in the fight against wildlife trafficking and are engaged in activities under all three of the strategic priorities identified in the National Strategy. U.S. Government grants and initiatives in support of efforts to combat poaching of elephants and trafficking of elephant ivory include projects that provide for: Training, operating expenses, and equipment for anti-poaching patrols; purchase and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment for rangers; expenses for aerial surveillance; and training of dogs for detection and investigation of wildlife crime and protection of rangers and wildlife. U.S. Government law enforcement professionals provide training and expertise to foreign partners in Africa through the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Botswana (created through a bilateral agreement between the governments of Botswana and the United States to provide training for representatives from countries in sub-Saharan Africa). The U.S. Government also promotes and supports the development and operation of regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks and provides training to develop capacities to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate wildlife crimes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement has placed special agents in U.S. embassies in key regions (including in China, Botswana, Tanzania, and Thailand) to build wildlife law enforcement capacity, coordinate investigations, and facilitate information sharing and training. The Service and other U.S. Government agencies also support research, monitoring and assessment of elephant populations, landscape and community conservation efforts, and projects to mitigate human-elephant conflict and to reduce demand for elephant ivory. All of these U.S. Government initiatives contribute to the conservation of the African elephant.
Eliminating poaching of elephants and trafficking of ivory can be achieved only through a concerted, multifaceted international effort. In issuing the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, President Obama recognized that “this is a global challenge requiring global solutions” and stated that we will work with foreign governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to maximize our impacts in addressing this challenge. In addition, the National Strategy asserts that “the United States must curtail its own role in the illegal trade in wildlife and must lead in addressing this issue on the global stage.” The United States is committed to doing its part to fight wildlife trafficking and to ensure the conservation of African elephants in the wild. This final rule is one component of this multifaceted effort.
All changes from the proposed rule of July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45154), to this final rule were discussed above in the responses to comments received. In summary, the provisions of this final rule are largely unchanged from those of the proposed rule, with the exception of words that have been added in response to requests in the comments:
• We added a sentence in paragraph (e) to remind readers that the provisions under AfECA also apply.
• We added the words “or handcrafted” following the word “manufactured” in paragraphs (e)(3), (5), (6), (7), and (8) to cover works that are unique and made primarily by hand that might not be considered “manufactured.” We added the words “or integral” to the criterion in paragraph (e)(3) that describes the ivory being a fixed component of a larger manufactured or handcrafted item to cover items that have small ivory pieces that can be easily removed (like nuts or pegs on some wooden tools or instruments).
• We added text to the criteria in paragraphs (e)(3)(iii) and (v) to clarify that when we say “primary” or “primarily” we mean more than 50 percent.
• We added text to paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B) to clarify that, for items that are part of a traveling exhibition, either a CITES traveling exhibition certificate or an equivalent CITES document may be used.
• We rephrased our reference to the African Elephant Conservation Act in paragraph (e)(9) where we clarify that, while the ESA antiques exception allows import of antiques, the moratorium under the AfECA does not.
The effects of this final rule on trade are set forth below in Table 1. This table is only for guidance on the revisions to the existing ESA 4(d) rule for the African elephant; see the rule text for details. All imports and exports must be accompanied by appropriate CITES documents and meet other FWS import/export requirements.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive Order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
A brief assessment to identify the economic costs and benefits associated with this rule follows. The Service has prepared an economic analysis, as part of our review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which we made available for review and comment (see the paragraph in this Required Determinations section on the
This rule regulates only African elephants and African elephant ivory. Asian elephants and parts or products from Asian elephants, including ivory, are regulated separately under the ESA. Ivory from marine species such as walrus is also regulated separately under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361
Impacted markets include those involving U.S. citizens or other persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United
The market for African elephant products, including ivory, is not large enough to have major data collections or reporting requirements, which results in a limited amount of available data for economic analysis. Some import and export data are available from the Service's Office of Law Enforcement and Division of Management Authority, and from reports produced by other organizations. On the whole, the available data provide a general overview of the African elephant ivory market. Using this information, we can make reasonable assumptions to approximate the potential economic impact of revision of the 4(d) rule for the African elephant. In our proposed rule, we solicited public input on impacts to sales, percentage of revenue impacted, and the number of businesses affected, particularly with regard to interstate and foreign commerce, for which we had the least amount of information, to help quantify these costs and benefits.
From 2007 to 2011, the total declared value of worked African elephant ivory exported from the United States varied widely from $32.1 million to $175.7 million. The declared value of items containing African elephant ivory that were less than 100 years old (and, therefore, could not qualify as ESA antiques) ranged from $607,000 to $3.7 million annually during the same time period. As this rule will no longer permit the commercial export of non-antique ivory, we expect, based on the information currently available, that, on average, commercial export of worked ivory will decrease by about $2.1 million annually (two percent, by value, of worked ivory exports).
As noted earlier, comprehensive data for the African elephant ivory market do not exist. Thus we estimate the value of the domestic market (including retail establishments, online auctions, and live auctions) using the best available data, which include reports that describe subsets of the domestic market along with public comments.
To extrapolate retail outlet data nationwide, assumptions are made using the best available data. Although the States of New York, New Jersey, California, and Washington have enacted stringent legislation prohibiting most ivory sales and Hawaii has new legislation ready to be signed by the governor, we have not excluded establishments in these states in order to estimate the largest potential impact. In 2006, Martin and Stiles surveyed 16 major cities across the United States to identify retail establishments trading in worked ivory (including ivory from African elephants). Using this information, along with more recent data, we have estimated that in 2016 there are 423 establishments in those 16 cities averaging 22 ivory items per outlet (see economic analysis). These establishments represent 11 percent of used merchandise stores and art dealers (423 ivory outlets of 3,996 establishments within the 16 cities). Applying this ratio (11 percent) to all used merchandise and art dealer establishments nationwide yields approximately 2,700 establishments selling 60,000 ivory items.
For online auctions, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) reported that there are two major online
For live auctions, IFAW investigated 14 auctions and found 833 ivory lots were sold over a 3-month period. Extrapolating to an annual estimate would result in 14 auction houses selling 3,332 ivory lots annually and averaging 238 ivory lots per auction house. The highest sold lot price ranged from $1,220 to $18,000. IFAW only investigated auctions that were identified as selling ivory during the scoping process and did not tabulate how many ivory lots were ultimately sold. Therefore, the percentage of live auctions selling ivory items and the number of ivory items sold is unknown. While we recognize that the impact on non-antique ivory sales in live auctions may be greater than the range of $72,600 to $1.3 million, we do not have information regarding the underlying distribution of potentially impacted auctions. However, based on publicly available information, we can estimate that there are as many as 8,097 auction houses in the United States that may sell ivory. Therefore, we expect that more than 14 auction houses sell ivory lots in a given year, but we have no basis to estimate the number of auction houses actually selling ivory or the quantity of ivory offered for sale. Due to the data limitations for live auctions and the methodology used in the 2014 IFAW report noted above, we are unable to extrapolate the 2014 IFAW report to a national estimate.
Assuming that the domestic market is similar to the export market, we estimate non-antique worked ivory domestic sales will decrease by about $1.8 million to $23.4 million annually (two percent of domestic sales) under this rule. We are not aware of any other data (in published reports or public comments) that estimate a larger percentage by value of non-antiques in the marketplace. Without data for a plausible range of impacts, we cannot improve the robustness of the analysis with a sensitivity analysis (Economists Incorporated 2016). Thus, non-antique sales in the domestic market would decrease by $1.8 million and $23.4 million annually.
Because we will allow intrastate sales and domestic and foreign commercial activities with certain items containing
The total annual decrease in non-antique ivory sales from exports, U.S. auctions, and retail stores, will represent two percent of all ivory sales. Thus, we expect that total ivory sales, including exports and sales in the domestic market, will decrease by $3.9 million to $25.5 million annually under this rule (see Table 2).
Revising the 4(d) rule for the African elephant will improve domestic regulation of the U.S. market, as well as foreign markets where commercial activities involving elephant ivory are conducted by U.S. citizens, and facilitate enforcement efforts within the United States. We are taking this action to increase protection for African elephants in response to the alarming rise in poaching of African elephants, which is fueling the rapidly expanding illegal trade in ivory. As noted in the preamble to this final rule, the United States continues to play a role as a destination and transit country for illegally traded elephant ivory. Increased control of the U.S. domestic
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or is below an established size standard. To assess the effects of the rule on small entities, we focused on businesses that buy or sell elephant ivory. Businesses produce a variety of products from elephant ivory, including cue sticks, pool balls, knife handles, gun grips, furniture inlay, jewelry, and instrument parts. Depending on the type of product produced, these businesses could be included in a number of different industries, including (1) Musical Instrument Manufacturing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 339992), where small businesses have less than $10.0 million in average annual receipts; (2) Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 423910), where small businesses have fewer than 100 employees; (3) All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321999), where small businesses have fewer than 500 employees; (4) Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing (NAICS 332215), where small businesses have fewer than 500 employees; (5) Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing, (NAICS 339910), where small businesses have fewer than 500 employees; (6) Used Merchandise Stores (NAICS 453310), where small businesses have less than $7.5 million in average annual receipts; (7) Art Dealers (NAICS 453920), where small businesses have less than $7.5 million in average annual receipts; (8) All other miscellaneous store retailers except tobacco (NAICS 453998), where small businesses have less than $7.5 million in average annual receipts; (9) All other support services, which includes independent auctioneers (NAICS 561990), where small businesses have less than $11.0 million in average annual receipts; and (10) Electronic Auctions (NAICS 454112), where small businesses have less than $35.5 million in average annual receipts.
The impact on individual businesses is dependent on the percentage of interstate and export sales that involve non-antique African elephant ivory that would not fall under the
For auctions (NAICS 453998 and NAICS 561990), IFAW reported that “In general, ivory constituted a small part of all the respondents' overall inventories—somewhere between 1 and 5 percent.” Since sale of antique ivory will still be allowed under this rule, we expect that a smaller percentage of inventories will be impacted. Thus, this rule will not have a significant impact on auctions.
For electronic auctions (NAICS 454112), IFAW reported that about five online auction aggregator Web sites may sell ivory products while noting that
One commenter estimated that there are about seven people in the United States who purchase tusks (from individuals who imported them prior to 1989) and cut them into a variety of forms for U.S. craftsmen to finish. These craftsmen work the ivory pieces into finished products, including pool cues, knife handles, and piano keys. He estimated that there are about 15 individuals making pool cues with ivory ferrules and that there are a total of about 300 people in the United States creating finished products using ivory components. This rule will impact craftsmen working with ivory in the United States. While the commenter does not provide data regarding the
This rule has an economic impact on U.S. craftsmen working with elephant ivory because it prohibits the interstate sale of items containing African elephant ivory manufactured after the effective date. Martin and Stiles estimated in their 2008 report that there are “a minimum of 120 craftsmen, including restorers, working in ivory at least several weeks a year” and that the “general feeling [at that time] was that the number has been decreasing over past years, with older people retiring and fewer young people replacing them.” One commenter estimated that domestic ivory carvers sell $1.5 million per year in ivory blanks to other craftsmen. We did not receive from commenters, and we are not able to provide, an estimate of the total value of products produced by such craftsmen. One commenter estimated that yearly sales of cue sticks containing ivory amount to $1.7 million per year. To the extent that these craftsmen are unable to utilize alternate materials (including, for example, mammoth ivory, cow bone, or deer antler) and that their business is conducted across State lines, they will be impacted by this rule.
Overall, we estimate that worked ivory exports will decrease about $2.1 million annually, which represents about two percent of the total declared value of worked ivory exported from 2007 to 2011. This estimate is based on the total declared value of worked African elephant ivory exported from the United States. The declared value of items containing African elephant ivory that were less than 100 years old (and, therefore, could not qualify as antiques) ranged from $607,000 to $3.7 million annually. The best available information does not provide any indication that there are differences in the proportion, by value, of antiques in domestic and foreign commerce. Therefore, we also estimate that domestic sales will decrease by up to two percent annually. Based on our estimate of the domestic ivory market to be about $88.8 million to $1.2 billion, we estimate that domestic sales will decrease by $1.8 million to $23.4 million annually. This sales decrease of two percent will be incurred among the various businesses and industries, which would face a range of impacts from minimal revenue decrease to closure. Because we are allowing domestic commercial activities with certain items containing
Based on the available information, we do not expect these changes to have a substantial economic impact. Thus, we do not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We, therefore, certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule creates no substantial fee or paperwork changes in the permitting process. The regulatory changes require issuance of ESA permits for import of all sport-hunted African elephant trophies. We estimate that we will issue 300 ESA permits per year for these sport-hunted trophies, with a fee of $100 per permit. These changes are not major in scope and would create only a modest financial or paperwork burden on the affected members of the general public. The authority to regulate activities involving ESA-listed species already exists under the ESA and is carried out through regulations contained in 50 CFR part 17.
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule revises the 4(d) rule for African elephant, which makes the African elephant subject to the same provisions applied to other threatened species not covered by a 4(d) rule, with certain exceptions. It will allow us to effectively regulate ivory trade in the United States and to ensure that the U.S. market for ivory is not contributing to poaching of elephants in Africa and the illegal ivory trade, without unnecessarily restricting activities that have no conservation effect or are strictly regulated under other law. This rule will not have a negative effect on this part of the economy. It will affect all importers, exporters, re-exporters, and domestic and certain traders in foreign commerce of African elephant ivory equally, and the impacts will be evenly spread among all businesses, whether large or small.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The final rule imposes no unfunded mandates. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Under current regulations, permits are required for import of sport-hunted African elephant trophies only from certain countries. OMB has reviewed and approved the collection of information under the current regulations and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0093, which expires May 31, 2017.
This final rule increases protection for and benefits the conservation of African elephants by more strictly controlling U.S. trade in ivory, without unnecessarily restricting activities that have no conservation effect or are strictly regulated under other law. We are taking this action in response to an unprecedented increase in poaching of elephants across Africa to supply an escalating illegal trade in ivory. This rule requires permits for import of all African elephant sport-hunted trophies;
We will publish a notice in the
A list of references cited is available online at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(e) African elephant (
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) If the item is located within the United States, the ivory was imported into the United States prior to January 18, 1990, or was imported into the United States under a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) pre-Convention certificate with no limitation on its commercial use;
(ii) If the item is located outside the United States, the ivory was removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976;
(iii) The ivory is a fixed or integral component or components of a larger manufactured or handcrafted item and is not in its current form the primary source of the value of the item, that is, the ivory does not account for more than 50 percent of the value of the item;
(iv) The ivory is not raw;
(v) The manufactured or handcrafted item is not made wholly or primarily of ivory, that is, the ivory component or components do not account for more than 50 percent of the item by volume;
(vi) The total weight of the ivory component or components is less than 200 grams; and
(vii) The item was manufactured or handcrafted before July 6, 2016.
(4)
(5)
(i)
(A) The ivory was legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976;
(B) The instrument containing worked ivory is accompanied by a valid CITES musical instrument certificate or equivalent CITES document;
(C) The instrument is securely marked or uniquely identified so that authorities can verify that the certificate corresponds to the musical instrument in question; and
(D) The instrument is not sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of while outside the certificate holder's country of usual residence.
(ii)
(A) The ivory was legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976;
(B) The item containing worked ivory is accompanied by a valid CITES traveling exhibition certificate (see the requirements for traveling exhibition certificates at 50 CFR 23.49) or equivalent CITES document;
(C) The item containing ivory is securely marked or uniquely identified so that authorities can verify that the certificate corresponds to the item in question; and
(D) The item containing worked ivory is not sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of while outside the certificate holder's country of usual residence.
(iii)
(6)
(A) The trophy was legally taken in an African elephant range country that declared an ivory export quota to the CITES Secretariat for the year in which the trophy animal was killed;
(B) A determination is made that the killing of the trophy animal will enhance the survival of the species and the trophy is accompanied by a threatened species permit issued under § 17.32;
(C) The trophy is legibly marked in accordance with 50 CFR part 23;
(D) The requirements in 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met; and
(E) No more than two African elephant sport-hunted trophies are imported by any hunter in a calendar year.
(ii) It is unlawful to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce or to deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a commercial activity any sport-hunted African elephant trophy. The exception in paragraph (e)(3) of this section regarding manufactured or handcrafted items containing
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(9) of this section, raw ivory that was imported as part of a sport-hunted trophy may not be exported from the United States. Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(7), (e)(8), and (e)(9) of this section, worked ivory imported as a sport-hunted trophy may not be exported from the United States. Parts of a sport-hunted trophy other than ivory may be exported from the United States without a threatened species permit issued under § 17.32, provided the requirements of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met.
(7)
(8)
(A) It is accompanied by a threatened species permit issued under § 17.32; and
(B) The requirements of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met.
(ii) It is unlawful to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce and to deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a commercial activity any African elephant ivory that was imported into or exported from the United States for genuine scientific purposes. The exception in paragraph (e)(3) of this section regarding manufactured or handcrafted items containing
(9)
Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a final rule, with editorial revisions to the second proposed rule, amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update requirements for special contracting methods by eliminating out of date references and reorganizing the text to align with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Janet Fry, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, by phone at 703-605-3167 or by email at
The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update outdated statutes and remove unnecessary or duplicative language from sections of GSAR part 517 that provide requirements for special contracting methods.
GSA published a proposed rule in the
GSA published a second proposed rule in the
To keep the GSAR current, GSA has updated statutes, removed unnecessary or duplicative language, aligned part 517 with the FAR and made editorial revisions as described below.
The final rule:
• Replaces “multiyear” with “multi-year” through the 517.1 subpart.
• Updates the statutes cited in GSAR 517.109.
• Deletes GSAR 517.200(b), GSAR 517.202(a)(2)(iv), GSAR 517.202(a)(2)(v) and GSAR 517.207(a), and makes conforming changes.
• Removes and reserves section 517.203 because the introduction text and paragraphs are duplicative of FAR 17.207 and GSAR 517.207.
• Replaces the content of GSAR 517.207(b) with new text, clarifying the need for the Contracting Officer to document the determination.
• Updates the program reference in GSAR 517.208(a).
• Addresses other administrative and typographical updates.
The following changes proposed in the second proposed rule were not retained in the final rule:
• The proposed new text in GSAR 517.203 cross referencing the requirements in FAR 22.407 when using option provisions was not retained in the final rule as the FAR adequately addresses the inclusion of option clauses.
• The proposed new text in GSAR 517.207 reminding Contracting Officers to seek new wage determinations when exercising options was not retained in the final rule since the requirement is adequately addressed in FAR 22.1007 for Service Contract Labor Standard and in FAR 22.404-12 for Wage Rate Requirements (Construction).
No comments on the second proposed rule were received from the public by the August 14, 2015 closing date.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The General Services Administration certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 517 and 552 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
This subpart applies to all GSA contracts for supplies and services, including:
(a) Services involving construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property.
(b) Architect-engineer services.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) When there is both a need for additional supplies or services beyond the basic contract period and the use of multi-year contracting authority is inappropriate.
In addition to the requirements of FAR 17.207, the Contracting Officer must also:
(a) Document the contract file with the rationale for an extended contractual relationship if the contractor's performance rating under the contract is less than satisfactory.
(b) Determine that the option price is fair and reasonable.
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
The revision reads as follows:
Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a final rule to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to clarify and update the contracting by negotiation GSAR section. The rule updates GSAR part 515 by eliminating out of date references and reorganizes the text to align with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The final rule incorporates many of the changes of the proposed rule and makes additional modifications to the text.
For clarification about content, contact Ms. Dana Munson at 202-357-9652. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2008-G506.
GSA published a proposed rule in the
The final rule updates the text addressing GSAR part 501, General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation System, part 515, Contracting by Negotiation, and corresponding provisions and clauses in GSAR part 552, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses. Streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering contractual relationships are also implemented with this final rule.
The GSAM incorporates the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) as well as internal agency acquisition policy. Five comments were received in response to the
The proposed rule published in October, 2008 moved clauses associated with GSA's Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts to GSAR part 538, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting, as part of the Rewrite initiative. However, only GSAR 515.209-70(c) and (d) and its associated clause 552.215-71 have been moved to part 538 through GSAR Case 2013-G502, Administrative Changes. Therefore, the remaining MAS provisions and clauses will be retained in GSAM part 515 per the final rule until addressed in separate GSAR 538 cases.
The proposed rule also transferred requirements from the regulatory GSAR part 515 to the non-regulatory GSAM as the requirements apply internally to GSA and not the public. These changes are reflected in the final rule.
The final rule makes additional changes based upon the comments received in response to the proposed rule and further edits existing GSAR 515 text. The specific changes to GSAR part 515 are as follows:
• GSAR 501.106—Aligned Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 3090-0163 with GSAR Clause 552.215-73, Notice.
• GSAR 515.204—Moved the text from subsection 515.204-1 to section 515.204 to parallel FAR section 15.204, identifying in paragraph (a) that the uniform contract format is not required for leasing. Added paragraph (b)
• GSAR 515.204-1—Deleted paragraphs (a) and (b) were moved to other sections of GSAR Part 515.
• GSAR 515.205—Deleted. When a contracting officer uses the government-wide point of entry, such as FedBizOpps, the contracting officer need not specifically send a solicitation to anyone, including the incumbent.
• GSAR 515.209—Added paragraphs (a) through (c) to align all GSAM part 515, Solicitation provisions and contract clauses, with FAR 15.209.
○ Paragraph (a) is the prescription for clause 552.215-70, Examination of Records by GSA. Edits made to the text include deleting the subtitle “Clause for other than multiple award schedules.” Replaced “$100,000” with “simplified acquisition threshold” and the word “you” with “contracting officer”. Eliminated the dashes in the titles, “Assistant Inspector General-Auditing” and “Regional Inspector General-Auditing, replacing each dash with “for”.
○ Paragraph (b) is the prescription for clause 552.215-73, Notice, moved from GSAM 515.204-1(b)(1) and (2), notifying the public of the assignment of OMB Control Number 3090-0163 to the information collection requirements contained in the solicitation and contract, and of GSA's hours of operation for requests of pre- or post-award debriefings.
○ Paragraph (c) is the new prescription to use GSAR clause 552.215-74, Notice about Releasing Proposals, when using non-government evaluators.
○ Paragraph (d) Clause for Multiple Award Schedules changes “Multiple Award Schedules (MAS)” to “Federal Supply Schedules (FSS);” Clause should be used in all FSS solicitations and contracts.
• GSAR 515.305—Moved from the regulatory to the non-regulatory as it is only applicable internally to GSA.
• GSAR 515.305-70—Deleted paragraph (a) was made non-regulatory, the solicitation notice in paragraph (c) was moved to 515.209-70(c) and the “Notice” itself was converted into clause 552.215-74.
• GSAR 515.70—The subpart, “Use of Bid Samples”, is deleted in its entirety as it is duplicative of FAR 14.202-4.
• GSAR 552.215-70—Replaced “$100,000” with “simplified acquisition threshold”.
• GSAR 552.215-73—Added a new clause, notifying the public of OMB Control Number assigned to information collection requirements contained in the solicitation and contract, and GSA's hours of operations.
• GSAR 552-215-74—Added a new clause for inclusion in solicitations when non-government evaluators will be used.
The public comment period for GSAR Part 515 closed on December 2, 2008, five comments were received from two respondents. A discussion of these comments is provided below:
“(c) Solicitation notice. When nongovernment evaluators will be used, include in the solicitation a notice substantially as follows:”
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The General Services Administration certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
The Paperwork Reduction Act applies; however, these changes to the GSAR do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 3090-0163.
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA is amending 48 CFR parts 501, 515 and 552 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
(a) The uniform contract format is not required for leases of real property (See GSAM 570.116).
(b) The Senior Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of granting exemptions to the use of the Uniform Contract Format (see FAR 15.204(e)).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(9) The contracting officer may modify the clause at 552.215-70 to define the specific area of audit (
(b) Insert the clause at 552.215-73, Notice, in all solicitations for negotiated procurements above the simplified acquisition threshold in accordance with FAR part 15.
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
The revisions read as follows:
As prescribed in 515.209-70(a), insert the following clause:
As prescribed in 515.209-70(b), insert the following clause:
(a) The information collection requirements contained in this solicitation/contract are either required by regulation or approved by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned OMB Control No. 3090-0163.
(b) GSA's hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. Requests for pre-award debriefings postmarked or otherwise submitted after 4:30 p.m. EST will be considered submitted the following business day. Requests for post-award debriefings delivered after 4:30 p.m. EST will be considered received and filed the following business day.
Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a final rule amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) regulation, Describing Agency Needs, to implement the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010 (FSSUA), the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2008 (NAHASDA), the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA), and the Local Preparedness Acquisition Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (LPAA). GSA is also amending the GSAR, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting, and Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, in regard to this statutory implementation to clarify the application of these laws and access privileges of certain Non-Federal Entities purchasing off of Federal Supply Schedules (FSS). Additionally, prescriptions in the GSAR are amended to reflect the correct prescription numbers. This final rule
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Dana Munson, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, by phone at 202-357-9652 or by email at
GSA published a proposed rule with a request for public comments in the
This final rule amends the GSAR to implement section 2 of the FSSUA (Pub. L. 111-263), which added subsection 40 U.S.C. 502(e), authorizing the use of the Schedules by the American National Red Cross and other qualified organizations, which includes National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD); section 3 of the FSSUA, which added subsection 40 U.S.C. 502(f), requiring all users of the Schedules, including non-Federal users, to use the contracts in accordance with ordering guidance provided by the Administrator of General Services; and section 4 of the FSSUA to include additional purchasing authority for state or local governments.
This final rule amends the GSAR to implement section 101 of NAHASDA (Pub. L. 110-411), codified at 25 U.S.C. 4111(j), which provides that “each Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity shall be considered to be an Executive agency in carrying out any program, service, or other activity under this Act; and (2) each Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity and each employee of the Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity shall have access to sources of supply on the same basis as employees of an Executive agency.” As such, tribes or tribally designated housing entities expending funds from block grants pursuant to NAHASDA may access GSA's sources of supply, including the Schedules, at their discretion.
The final rule amends GSAR Parts 511, 538, and 552 to implement Section 833 of the NDAA, which amends 40 U.S.C. 502(d)(1) to authorize the Administrator of General Services to provide to state or local governments the use of GSA's Schedules for the purchase of goods or services to be used to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121,
This final rule amends the GSAR to further implement section 833, which also amends 40 U.S.C. 502(d)(2) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine which goods and services qualify before the Administrator provides for the use of GSA's Schedules. House Report 109-452 of the Committee on Armed Services indicates that section 833 (referred to in the House Report as section 823), builds on the implementation of the Cooperative Purchasing Program authorized in Section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002, which permitted state or local governments to access GSA's information technology schedule, known as Schedule 70.
This final rule amends the GSAR to implement the LPAA, which amended 40 U.S.C. 502(c), by authorizing the Administrator of General Services to provide to state or local governments the use of GSA's Schedules for the acquisition of law enforcement, security, and certain other related items.
The prescriptions at GSAR 552.211-85 through 89 are incorrectly numbered. This final rule reflects the correct prescriptions for GSAR clauses 552.211-85 through 89. This final rule also updates the web address in GSAR clause 552.211-89(d) to correct an inoperable link.
The authority granted under FSSUA is available for use on a voluntary (
All users of GSA's Schedules, including non-Federal users, shall use the Schedules in accordance with the ordering guidance provided by the Administrator of General Services. GSA encourages non-Federal users to follow the Schedule Ordering Procedures set forth in FAR subpart 8.4, but they may use different established competitive ordering procedures if such procedures are needed to satisfy their state and local acquisition regulations and/or organizational policies.
The non-Federal ordering activity is responsible for ensuring that only authorized representatives of its organization place orders and that goods or services ordered are used only for the purposes authorized. Existing Schedule contracts may be modified only by mutual agreement of the parties. After an existing contract has been modified, a Schedule contractor still retains the right to decline orders by non-Federal entities on a case-by-case basis. This applies to future Schedule contractors, as well. Schedule contractors may decline any order from entities outside the Executive Branch (see GSAR 552.238-78). Similarly, the rule places no obligation on non-Federal buyers to use Schedule contracts. They will have full discretion to decide if they wish to make a Schedule purchase, subject however, to any limitations that may be established under state and local laws or organizational policies.
The Federal Government will not be liable for the performance or nonperformance of orders established under the authority of this rule between Schedule contractors and eligible non-Federal entities. Disputes that cannot be resolved by the parties to the new contract can be litigated in any court of competent jurisdiction over the parties.
The prices of supplies and services available on Schedule contracts include an industrial funding fee (IFF). The fee covers the administrative costs incurred by GSA to operate the Schedules program. The fee may be periodically adjusted as necessary to recover the cost of operating the program.
Two respondents submitted comments in response to the proposed rule. These comments, along with comments received from the previously published interim rules, are addressed in the Discussion and Analysis Section.
The General Services Administration has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposed rule and the previously published interim rules in the development of the final rule. Comments are grouped into categories in order to provide clarification and to better respond to the issues raised. A discussion of all comments received and the changes made to the rule as a result
The respondent suggested the following changes to the GSAR text that included changing definitions to match definitions and terms in various parts of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the United States Code:
• Delete the terms “Preparedness, Recovery, Relief, and Response” found under Subpart 538.7001 Definitions and permit the definitions and legal intentions set forth throughout the FAR, in accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121,
• Replace references to Public Law with applicable “40 U.S.C. 502” authority;
• Remove the “Disaster Recovery Purchasing” program from eLibrary and advise contractors to register in System Award Management (SAM) for the “Disaster Response Registry;” and
• Mandate all non-federal entities use GSA Advantage! in order to track and monitor compliance with IFF and to ensure compliance with 40 U.S.C. 502 authority.
The IFF is tracked separately for sales under the Disaster Purchasing and Cooperative Purchasing Programs. However, it is not tracked separately for other special programs. The Red Cross and other qualified organization sales are reported under Federal sales. GSA is able to track these sales, when made through GSA eTools.
GSA Industrial Operating Analysts and Administrative Contracting Officers work with the GSA vendor community to ensure that all GSA vendors, including authorized non-Federal Entities, are aware of the reporting requirements under the separate programs and that orders are properly tracked and reported on the quarterly 72A forms. No change was made as a result of this comment.
GSA eTools, GSA Advantage!® and eLibrary, provide a list of current contractors, products, and services available to eligible non-Federal entities. Schedule contractors that have opted to sell under these programs have agreed to do so at the contract level and their agreement is noted in the eTools with a “COOPPURCH” or “DISASTRECOV” icon.
When requested, buyers only see contractors that have agreed to participate in the program. This information displays into GSA Advantage!® and its component system eBuy, which facilitates the request for submission of quotations for commercial products and services.
Use of eTools is not mandatory for non-Federal entities and requiring mandatory use of eTools, as suggested in the comments, would be a barrier to use for some state and local government entities. Some entities require use of their own systems to process and execute orders and some entities do not support use of credit cards. Mandating the use of a system, like GSA Advantage!®, that requires credit cards, would prohibit some legally authorized users from accessing these contracts.
This rule provides certain Non-Federal Entities with access to GSA Schedules under the following conditions and authorities:
1. Disaster Purchasing-Authorized under Section 833 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 109-364) and the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010 (FSSUA) (Pub. L. 111-263), provides State and local use of Federal Supply Schedules for the purchase of goods or services to be used to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121,
2. Cooperative Purchasing—Authorized previously under the eGovernment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347), expanded here under the Local Preparedness Acquisition Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-248), provides State and local government use of Federal Supply Schedules for the acquisition of law enforcement, security, and certain other related items by State and local governments. This expansion is limited to Schedule 84, Total Solutions for Law Enforcement, Security, facilities management, fire, rescue, marine craft, and Emergency/Disaster Response. Schedule 70 for Information Technology products and Services was previously authorized under this program.
3. American National Red Cross—Authorized under the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-263), provides the American National Red Cross access to Federal Supply Schedules, when purchasing in furtherance of the purposes of the American National Red Cross set forth in section 300102 of title 36, United States Code.
4. Other Qualified Organizations—Authorized under the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-263), provides access to Federal Supply Schedules for “other qualified organizations” when purchasing in furtherance of purposes determined to be appropriate to facilitate emergency preparedness and disaster relief and set forth in guidance by the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). GSA, in consultation with FEMA has determined that, at this time, the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD), may utilize Federal Supply Schedules in furtherance of purposes determined to be appropriate to facilitate emergency preparedness and disaster relief.
5. Tribal Government Access to Schedules—authorized under Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2008 (NAHASDA) (Pub. L. 104-330), provides that “each Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity shall be considered to be an Executive agency in carrying out any program, service, or other activity under this Act; and (2) each Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity and each employee of the Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity shall have access to sources of supply on the same basis as employees of an Executive agency.” As such, tribes or tribally designated housing entities expending funds from block grants pursuant to NAHASDA may access GSA's sources of supply, including the Schedules, at their discretion. This Final Rule does not grant any additional authority for non-Federal entities to use Federal Supply Schedules other than those listed above.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The change may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601,
GSA has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a final rule amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) Part 511, Describing Agency Needs, to implement the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010 (FSSUA), the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2008 (NAHASDA), the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA), and the Local Preparedness Acquisition Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (LPAA), to provide non-Federal entity access to GSA's Federal Supply Schedules (Schedules).
Prior to the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010 (hereinafter, “Act”), state and local governments and the American National Red Cross were authorized to procure from Schedules, but only for limited purposes and specific scopes. ”Other qualified organizations” were not previously authorized to procure from Schedules contracts.
Under the Act, the scope of authorized users of FSS contracts is expanded to include “other qualified organizations,” which is in addition to the already authorized state and local governments and the American National Red Cross (ANRC). Access to Schedules for each of these entities varies. The ANRC may access Schedules in support of their Federal charter; state and local governments may use the Schedules to prepare, respond, and recover from major disasters; and “other qualified organizations” may use the Schedules for emergency preparedness and disaster relief.
It should be noted that this is an optional program under the FSS program. This final rule applies to all FSS contractors that agree to sell goods and services to these eligible entities, under the appropriate scope of use. A modification will be issued outlining if a
Further, the final rule amends the GSAR to implement section 101 of NAHASDA, codified at 25 U.S.C. 4111(j), which provides that “each Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity shall be considered to be an Executive agency in carrying out any program, service, or other activity under this Act; and (2) each Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity and each employee of the Indian tribe or tribally designated housing entity shall have access to sources of supply on the same basis as employees of an Executive agency.” As such, tribes or tribally designated housing entities expending funds from block grants pursuant to NAHASDA may access GSA's sources of supply, including the Schedules, at their discretion.
Additionally, the final rule amends the GSAR to implement Section 833 of the NDAA, which amends 40 U.S.C. 502(d)(1) to authorize the Administrator of General Services to provide to state or local governments the use of GSA's Schedules for the purchase of goods or services to be used to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121,
Finally, the final rule amends the GSAR to implement the LPAA, which amended 40 U.S.C. 502(c), by authorizing the Administrator of General Services to provide to state or local governments the use of GSA's Schedules for the acquisition of law enforcement, security, and certain other related items.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the FRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division.
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 511, 538, and 552 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
(b) * * *
(2) The contracting officer shall include the clause at 552.211-75, Preservation, Packaging, and Packing, in solicitations and contracts for supplies expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer may also include the clause in contracts estimated to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold when appropriate. The contracting officer shall use Alternate I in solicitations and contracts for all Federal Supply Schedule Contracts.
(c)
(a) * * *
(2) 552.238-71, Submission and Distribution of Authorized FSS Schedule Pricelists.
(b) * * *
(2) 552.238-75, Price Reductions.
(d) Other Federal Supply Schedules as authorized in this subpart.
(d) Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 authorizing state and local governments, to use Federal Supply Schedule contracts to purchase products and services to be used to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
(e) Public Law 111-263, the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010, authorizes the American National Red Cross to use Federal Supply Schedule contracts to purchase goods or services to be used in furtherance of its purposes as set forth in its federal charter (36 U.S.C. 300102).
(f) Public Law 111-263, the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010, authorizes other qualified organizations to use Federal Supply Schedule contracts to purchase products and services in furtherance of purposes determined to be appropriate to facilitate emergency preparedness and disaster relief and set forth in guidance by the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Other qualified organizations must meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 5152.
(g) A listing of the participating contractors and SINs for the goods and services that are available under these authorized Federal Supply Schedules, is available in GSA's e-Library at
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.238-77, Definition (Federal Supply Schedules)-Non-Federal Entity in solicitations and contracts for all Federal Supply Schedules.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.238-78, Scope of Contract (Eligible Ordering Activities), in solicitations and contracts for all Federal Supply Schedules.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.238-79, Use of Federal Supply Schedule Contracts by Non-Federal Entities, in solicitations and contracts for all Federal Supply Schedules.
(d) See 552.101-70 for authorized FAR deviations.
The revision reads as follows:
The revision reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(3) Made to Eligible Ordering Activities identified in GSAR clause 552.238-78 when the order is placed under this contract (and the Eligible Ordering Activities identified in GSAR clause 552.238-78 is the agreed upon customer or category of customer that is the basis of award); or
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) Tribes or tribally designated housing entities pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 4111(j);
(d) The following activities may place orders against Schedule 70 contracts:
(1) State and local government may place orders against Schedule 70 contracts, and Consolidated Schedule contracts containing information technology Special Item Numbers, and Schedule 84 contracts, on an optional basis; PROVIDED, the Contractor accepts order(s) from such activities;
(2) The American National Red Cross may place orders against Federal Supply Schedules for products and services in furtherance of the purposes set forth in its Federal charter (36 U.S.C. 300102); PROVIDED, the Contractor accepts order(s) from the American National Red Cross; and
(3) Other qualified organizations, as defined in section 309 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5152), may place orders against Federal Supply Schedules for products and services determined to be appropriate to facilitate emergency preparedness and disaster relief and set forth in guidance by the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; PROVIDED, the Contractor accepts order(s) from such activities.
(4) State and local governments may place orders against Federal Supply Schedules for goods or services determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121,
(h) All users of GSA's Federal Supply Schedules, including non-Federal users, shall use the schedules in accordance with the ordering guidance provided by the Administrator of General Services. GSA encourages non-Federal users to follow the Schedule Ordering Procedures set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.4, but they may use different established competitive ordering procedures if such procedures are needed to satisfy their state and local acquisition regulations and/or organizational policies.
| 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR