Page Range | 36787-37120 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 36861 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA); Cotton Ginning Cost-Share (CGCS) Program Payments to Cotton Producers | |
81 FR 36957 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 36842 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, | |
81 FR 36848 - Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; MS; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
81 FR 36959 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records Notice | |
81 FR 36801 - Privacy Act of 1974; Exemptions | |
81 FR 36954 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Lakeshore Museum Center, Muskegon, MI | |
81 FR 36952 - Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA | |
81 FR 36944 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA | |
81 FR 36945 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA | |
81 FR 36950 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA | |
81 FR 36950 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN | |
81 FR 36952 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA | |
81 FR 36947 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL | |
81 FR 36946 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Evanston History Center, Evanston, IL | |
81 FR 36949 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA | |
81 FR 36945 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA | |
81 FR 36895 - Applications for New Awards; Comprehensive Centers Program-National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With Disabilities | |
81 FR 36831 - Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile 42.5 to 43.0, Chester, West Virginia | |
81 FR 36911 - Cannon Drive Drum Superfund Site Social Circle, Walton County, Georgia; Notice of Settlement | |
81 FR 36800 - Safety Zone; Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks | |
81 FR 36913 - Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations To Terminate Certain Uses | |
81 FR 36912 - Access by EPA Contractors to Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) Submitted Under Title II of the Clean Air Act and Related Regulations | |
81 FR 36870 - Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
81 FR 36873 - Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
81 FR 36874 - Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order | |
81 FR 36919 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 36918 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 36922 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 36920 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 36963 - Fuel Retrievability in Spent Fuel Storage Applications | |
81 FR 36892 - National Coastal Mapping Strategy 1.0: Coastal Lidar Elevation for a 3D Nation Draft for Review | |
81 FR 36860 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Mangoes From India Into the Continental United States | |
81 FR 36894 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36942 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
81 FR 36858 - Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea | |
81 FR 36958 - NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education Meeting | |
81 FR 36894 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36864 - Deschutes-Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 36915 - Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft Titled Tax Expenditures: Management's Discussion and Analysis and Disclosure Requirements | |
81 FR 36933 - Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health | |
81 FR 36941 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Land Use Plans for the BLM-Administered Public Lands in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment | |
81 FR 36943 - Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Fresno and Monterey Counties, CA | |
81 FR 36984 - Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International (PIE), St. Petersburg, FL | |
81 FR 36964 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 36903 - Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations | |
81 FR 36923 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “A Bill You Can Understand” Design and Innovation Challenge: Help Patients Understand Their Medical Bills and the Financial Aspect of Health; Correction | |
81 FR 36940 - Public Assistance Program Minimum Standards; Reopening of Comment Period | |
81 FR 36864 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36932 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
81 FR 36932 - Meeting Notice for the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships | |
81 FR 36987 - Proposed Collection of Information: Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Market Research Study | |
81 FR 36863 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36810 - National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Proposed Rule; Extension of Comment Period | |
81 FR 36876 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
81 FR 36887 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From Canada: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 36876 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 36917 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
81 FR 36939 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 36933 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive License: The Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) Based on HN3 for the Treatment of Human Cancers | |
81 FR 36937 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 36881 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 36989 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meetings | |
81 FR 36928 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ALPROLIX | |
81 FR 36988 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
81 FR 36895 - Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 36931 - Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 36924 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Mammography Quality Standards Act Requirements | |
81 FR 36929 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ELOCTATE | |
81 FR 36957 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Interstate Firearms Shipment Report of Theft/Loss (ATF F 3310.6) | |
81 FR 36893 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Monitoring Systems and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) | |
81 FR 36790 - New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application | |
81 FR 36787 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of Sponsorship | |
81 FR 36940 - Towing Safety Advisory Committee; June 2016 Teleconference | |
81 FR 36967 - Carey Credit Income Fund, et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 36909 - Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 36905 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 36939 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36963 - Forum | |
81 FR 36866 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 36865 - Advisory Committees Expiration | |
81 FR 36867 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee To Discuss Approval of a Report to the Commission Regarding Civil Rights and Police/Community Relations in the State | |
81 FR 36937 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 36937 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 36935 - National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 36934 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 36936 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
81 FR 36936 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting. | |
81 FR 36935 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 36938 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 36956 - Certain Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Issuance of Consent Order and Termination of the Investigation | |
81 FR 36935 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 36803 - Completeness Findings for 110(a)(2)(C) State Implementation Plan Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 | |
81 FR 36986 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
81 FR 36916 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
81 FR 36858 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
81 FR 36884 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 36965 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 1015, Disciplinary Functions | |
81 FR 36867 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
81 FR 36871 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 36979 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Update and Formalize the ICC Stress Testing Framework | |
81 FR 36966 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location Section of the Fee Schedule To Reflect the Changes | |
81 FR 36967 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location Section of the Fee Schedule To Reflect the Changes | |
81 FR 36981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location Section of the Price List To Reflect the Changes | |
81 FR 36973 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Price List To Eliminate Certain Services That Are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete Text | |
81 FR 36981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Eliminate Certain Services That Are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete Text | |
81 FR 36975 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Eliminate Certain Services That are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete Text | |
81 FR 36806 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Tribal Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas | |
81 FR 36891 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
81 FR 36955 - Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same Institution of Investigation | |
81 FR 36978 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36977 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36984 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 36954 - 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 36902 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Annual Performance Report | |
81 FR 36988 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13712 | |
81 FR 36798 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL | |
81 FR 36923 - Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 36833 - Secretary's Proposed Supplemental Priority for Discretionary Grant Programs | |
81 FR 36791 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment | |
81 FR 36808 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Other Hook-and-Line Fishery by Catcher Vessels in the Gulf of Alaska | |
81 FR 36962 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection | |
81 FR 36907 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 36910 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 36909 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 36904 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 36910 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 36793 - Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; Final and Temporary Regulations | |
81 FR 36816 - Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs] | |
81 FR 36836 - Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands | |
81 FR 36985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Rebate System | |
81 FR 36815 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lakota, ND | |
81 FR 36810 - Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes | |
81 FR 36826 - Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust | |
81 FR 36818 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines | |
81 FR 36805 - Updating Competitive Bidding Rules | |
81 FR 36813 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
81 FR 36991 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during March and April 2016. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect changes of sponsorship of applications and the voluntary withdrawals of approval of applications that occurred in January and February.
This rule is effective June 8, 2016 except for the amendments to 21 CFR 520.1696b, 520.2325a, 520.2261a, 558.248, and 558.625, which are effective June 20, 2016.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during March and April 2016, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room:
Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201 (Bayer) has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following approved applications to Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland:
Bayer has also transferred sponsorship of NADA 141-070 for RAPINOVET (propofol) Injectable Emulsion to iVaoes Animal Health, 4300 SW 73rd Ave., suite 110, Miami, FL 33155. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these changes of sponsorship.
In addition, during March and April 2016, the following two sponsors have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NADAs and ANADAs listed in the following table because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:
Elsewhere in this issue of the
FDA has noticed that the section heading for 21 CFR 520.1430 does not accurately reflect the new animal drug for which approved conditions of use are codified. At this time, we are amending the section heading to read “Mibolerone” rather than “Megestrol acetate tablets.” This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Foods.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, parts 510, 520, 522, 556, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.
(c)
21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.
(d) * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) VFDs for tylvalosin shall not be refilled.
(3) An expiration date of 1 week is required for tylvalosin Type C medicated swine feeds in pelleted or crumbled form.
(e)
(2)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of five new animal drug applications (NADAs) and an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA). This action is being taken at the sponsors' request because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.
Withdrawal of approval is effective June 20, 2016.
Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761,
The sponsors of the following applications have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NADAs and ANADA listed in the following table because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:
Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Department of State.
Final rule.
This final rule is issued to adjust the civil monetary penalties (CMP) for regulatory provisions maintained and enforced by the Department of State. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Act), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), required the head of each agency to adjust its CMPs for inflation no later than October 23, 1996 and required agencies to make adjustments at least once every four years thereafter. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) further amended the 1990 Act by requiring agencies to adjust CMPs, if necessary, pursuant to a “catch-up” adjustment methodology prescribed by the 2015 Act, which mandates that the catch up adjustment take effect no later than August 1, 2016. Additionally, the 2015 Act requires agencies to make annual adjustments to their respective CMPs in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget. The revised CMP adjustments in this rule will apply only to those penalties assessed after its effective date; subsequent annual adjustments are to be published not later than January 15 of each year. In keeping with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the new penalty levels will apply to all assessments made on or after August 1, 2016, regardless of the date on which the underlying facts or violations occurred.
This final rule is effective August 1, 2016.
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Management,
The 1990 Act (Pub. L. 101-410) provided for the regular evaluation of CMPs by federal agencies. Periodic inflationary adjustments of CMPs ensure that the consequences of statutory violations adequately reflect the gravity of such offenses and that CMPs are properly accounted for and collected by the federal government. In April 1996, the 1990 Act was amended by the 1996 Act (Pub. L. 104-134), which required federal agencies to adjust their CMPs at least once every four years. However, because inflationary adjustments to CMPs were statutorily capped at ten percent of the maximum penalty amount, but only required to be calculated every four years, CMPs in many cases did not correspond with the true measure of inflation over the preceding four year period, leading to a decline in the real value of the penalty. To remedy this decline, the 2015 Act (section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) requires agencies to adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through a rulemaking and to make subsequent annual inflationary adjustments to their respective CMPs using a methodology mandated by the legislation.
The 1990 Act defines civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:
• Is for a specific monetary amount as provided for in federal law; or has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; and
• is assessed or enforced by an agency as pursuant to federal law; and,
• is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.
Within the Department of State (Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations), this rule affects four areas:
(1) Part 35, which implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812;
(2) Part 103, which implements the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (CWC Act);
(3) Part 127, which implements the penalty provisions of sections 38(e), 39A(c), and 40(k) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778(e), 2779a(c), 2780(k)); and
(4) Part 138, which implements Section 319 of Public Law 101-221, codified at 31 U.S.C. 1352, and prohibits recipients of federal contracts, grants, and loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative Branches of the federal government in connection with a specific contract.
The 2015 Act instructs agencies to make a one-time catch-up adjustment to CMPs using the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum penalties as they were “most recently established or adjusted under a provision of law other than [the 1990] Act.” Nevertheless, the 2015 Act
The PFRCA, enacted in 1986, authorizes agencies, with approval from the Department of Justice, to pursue individuals or firms for false claims. The maximum liability under the PFRCA is $5,000 for each false claim, up to a maximum of $150,000, in addition to twice the amount of the claim submitted contrary to the PFRCA.
According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for the PFRCA (a 1986 statute) is 2.15628; therefore, the new maximum penalty for each false claim or statement is $10,781, up to a maximum of $323,442.
The CWC Act provided domestic implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. The penalty provisions of the CWC Act are codified at 22 U.S.C. 6761. A person violating 22 U.S.C. 6761(a)(1)(A),
According to OMB Guidance, the multiplier for the CWC Act (a 1998 statute) is 1.45023. Therefore, the new maximum civil monetary penalty for prohibited acts relating to inspections is $36,256 for each violation; and the new maximum civil monetary penalty for recordkeeping violations is $7,251 for each such violation.
The Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs is responsible for the imposition of CMPs under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which is administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). Each of the penalty provisions of the AECA provides that the CMP for each relevant violation may not exceed $500,000.
The most recent statutory modification of the CMPs provided for under AECA section 38(e), 22 U.S.C. 2778(e), occurred in 1985 when the maximum penalty amount was capped at $500,000 per violation. According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for AECA section 38(e) is 2.18802; therefore, the new maximum penalty will be $1,094,010 per violation.
The most recent statutory modification of the CMPs provided for under AECA section 39A(c), 22 U.S.C. 2779a(c), occurred in 1994 when the maximum penalty amount was capped at $500,000 per violation. According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for AECA section 39A(c) is 1.59089; therefore, the new maximum adjusted penalty level will be $795,445 per violation.
The most recent statutory modification of the CMPs provided for under AECA section 40(k), 22 U.S.C. 2780(k), occurred in 1989 when the maximum penalty amount was capped at $500,000 per violation. According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for AECA section 40(k) is 1.89361; therefore, the new maximum adjusted penalty level will be $946,805 per violation.
Section 319 of Public Law 101-121, codified at 31 U.S.C. 1352, provides penalties for recipients of federal contracts, grants, and loans who use appropriated funds to lobby the Executive or Legislative Branches of the federal government in connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. Any person who violates that prohibition is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure. The statute also requires each person who requests or receives a federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, loan, or a federal commitment to insure or guarantee a loan, to disclose any lobbying; the penalty for failure to disclose is not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for 31 U.S.C. 1352 (a 1989 statute) is 1.89361. Therefore, the new maximum civil violations under the statute, for both improper expenditures and failure to disclose, are: Not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361.
The revised CMP amounts will go into effect on August 1, 2016. All violations for which CMPs are assessed after the effective date of this rule, regardless of whether the violation occurred before the effective date, will be assessed at the adjusted penalty level.
The 2015 Act directs agencies to undertake an annual review of CMPs using a formula prescribed by the statute. Hereafter, annual adjustments to CMPs will be made in accordance with the guidance issued by OMB. The Department of State will publish notification of annual inflation adjustments to CMPs in the
The Department of State is publishing this rule using the “good cause” exception to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), as the Department has determined that public comment on this rulemaking would be impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This rulemaking is mandatory; it implements Public Law 114-74.
Because this rulemaking is exempt from Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
This rule does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary
The Department believes that benefits of the rulemaking outweigh any costs, and there are no feasible alternatives to this rulemaking. It is the Department's position that this rulemaking is not an economically significant rule under the criteria of Executive Order 12866, and is consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 13563.
The Department of State has reviewed the proposed amendment in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Classified information, Foreign relations, Freedom of information, International organization, Investigations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, 22 CFR parts 127, 35, 103, and 138 are amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801
(f) The maximum penalty for each false claim or statement is $10,781, up to a maximum of $323,442.
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 6701
Sections 2, 38, and 42, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2791); 22 U.S.C. 401; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2779a; 22 U.S.C. 2780; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129; Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.
(a)(1) The Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs is authorized to impose a civil penalty, as follows:
(i) For each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2778, an amount not to exceed $1,094,010;
(ii) For each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2779a, an amount not to exceed $795,445; and
(iii) For each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2780, an amount not to exceed $946,805.
(2) The civil penalty may be either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other liability or penalty which may be imposed.
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 1352; Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains final and temporary regulations effecting the repeal of the
These regulations are effective June 7, 2016.
Austin M. Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-5085 (not a toll-free number).
In general, gain on a sale of appreciated property by a C corporation is taxed to the corporation when the sale occurs and to the shareholders when the proceeds are distributed as dividends. Historically however, a corporation generally could distribute appreciated property to its shareholders without recognition of gain to the corporation under the so-called
Beginning in 1969, a series of statutory limitations on the
Section 337(d) directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of
Section 355 generally provides that, if certain requirements are satisfied, a corporation may distribute stock (or stock and securities) of one or more controlled corporations to its shareholders and security holders without the distributing corporation, its shareholders, or its security holders recognizing income, gain, or loss on the distribution (a section 355 distribution). In the course of enacting certain amendments to section 355 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, Congress described section 355 as a “limited exception to the repeal of the
On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Protecting Americans Against Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), enacted as Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2422. Section 311(a) and (b) of the PATH Act added to the Code sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8), respectively. Section 355(h)(1) of the Code provides that section 355 shall not apply to a distribution if either the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation is a REIT. Section 355(h)(2) provides exceptions permitting a REIT to distribute the stock of another REIT or of a taxable REIT subsidiary under certain conditions. Section 856(c)(8) provides that a corporation may not elect REIT status during the ten-year period following a section 355 distribution if such corporation was the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation in that distribution. Section 311(c) of the PATH Act provides that sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8) apply to distributions on or after December 7, 2015, but do not apply to any distribution pursuant to a transaction described in a ruling request initially submitted to the IRS on or before such date, which request has not been withdrawn and with respect to which a ruling has not been issued or denied in its entirety as of such date.
In certain cases,
The Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 88-19 (1988-1 C.B. 486) on February 4, 1988. Notice 88-19 announced the IRS's intention to promulgate regulations providing that a C corporation engaging in a conversion transaction would be treated, for all federal income tax purposes, as if it had sold all of its assets at their respective fair market values (deemed sale treatment) and immediately liquidated, unless the C corporation elected to be
Additional temporary regulations under §§ 1.337(d)-6T and 1.337(d)-7T (TD 8975) and a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations (REG-142299-01 and REG-209135-88) were published in the
The final regulations in § 1.337(d)-6 apply to conversion transactions occurring on or after June 10, 1987, and before January 2, 2002, and provide that a C corporation engaging in such a conversion transaction is subject to deemed sale treatment unless the C corporation elects section 1374 treatment with respect to the converted property. The final regulations in § 1.337(d)-7 apply to conversion transactions occurring on or after January 2, 2002, and provide that the RIC or the REIT owning the property after the conversion transaction is subject to section 1374 treatment unless the C corporation engaging in a conversion transaction elects deemed sale treatment with respect to the converted property.
In response to concerns expressed by commentators (described subsequently), the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
The 2013 amendments address two principal areas of concern. First, the 2013 amendments provide an exception from the general rule subjecting the RIC or the REIT to section 1374 treatment in the case of a transfer of property by a C corporation to a RIC or a REIT to the extent the transfer qualifies for nonrecognition treatment under section 1031 (relating to like-kind exchanges) or section 1033 (relating to involuntary conversions). The Treasury Department and the IRS did not extend this treatment to all exchanged basis transactions, such as exchanges that would otherwise qualify for nonrecognition treatment under section 351 of the Code, out of concern that such an exception could create opportunities to avoid corporate-level tax on built-in gains. Second, the 2013 amendments provide an exception for conversion transactions in which the C corporation that owned the converted property is a tax-exempt entity to the extent that gain would not be subject to tax if a deemed sale election were made. In such circumstances, the C corporation is not required to make a deemed sale election, and the RIC or the REIT is not subject to section 1374 treatment.
Congress, the Treasury Department, and the IRS are aware of transactions in which a C corporation that does not qualify as a REIT distributes the stock of a controlled corporation in a transaction intended to qualify under section 355 so that either the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation can qualify as a REIT. In many cases, a C corporation that owns both assets qualifying as real estate assets for purposes of part II, subchapter M, chapter 1 of the Code (REIT-qualifying assets) and assets that do not so qualify (non-qualifying assets) transfers either the REIT-qualifying assets or the non-qualifying assets to a controlled corporation in exchange for its stock and then distributes the controlled corporation stock to its shareholders. Before or after the distribution, the corporation holding the REIT-qualifying assets elects REIT status. If the transaction satisfies the requirements of sections 368(a)(1)(D), 355, and 361, no gain is recognized on either the transfer of assets by the distributing corporation to the controlled corporation or the distribution of the controlled corporation stock to the shareholders of the distributing corporation.
Prior to the enactment of the PATH Act, the IRS issued Notice 2015-59 (2015-40 I.R.B. 467) and Revenue Procedure 2015-43 (2015-40 I.R.B. 495) on September 14, 2015, in part to respond to the transactions described in the preceding paragraph. Revenue Procedure 2015-43 provides that the IRS will not ordinarily issue a ruling relating to the qualification under section 355 and related provisions of a distribution in certain circumstances in which property owned by the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT. Notice 2015-59 states that such transactions “may circumvent the purposes of Code provisions intended to repeal the Supreme Court's decision” in
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that section 1374 treatment imposes an appropriate regime for recognizing built-in gain for many conversion transactions. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned, however, that section 1374 treatment may not adequately implement the purposes of
Moreover, the REIT and its shareholders may realize the benefit of appreciation on converted property without a transaction subject to section 1374 treatment or otherwise taxable at the corporate level. For example, a REIT that distributes rental income on appreciated converted property to its shareholders may be entitled to a dividends paid deduction under section 562 and, therefore, effectively does not pay income tax at the REIT level on that income, which in many cases will
Section 311 of the PATH Act addresses some of the concerns just described. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that some variations of the transactions previously described may continue to be used to circumvent the purposes of section 311 of the PATH Act. In particular, there is concern that corporations affiliated with the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation could be used to circumvent the Congressional policy implemented through section 311 of the PATH Act. The Treasury Department and the IRS thus have determined that temporary regulations are necessary to prevent abuses of sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8) and to further the purposes of
Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing these temporary regulations providing that a C corporation engaging in a conversion transaction involving a REIT within the ten-year period following a related section 355 distribution is treated as making an election to recognize gain and loss as if it had sold all of the converted property to an unrelated party at fair market value on the deemed sale date (as defined in § 1.337(d)-7(c)(3)). Section 1374 treatment is accordingly not available in these cases as an alternative to recognizing any gain with respect to the converted property on the deemed sale date.
The temporary regulations also provide that a REIT that is a party to a section 355 distribution occurring within the ten-year period following a conversion transaction for which a deemed sale election has not been made recognizes any remaining unrecognized built-in gains and losses resulting from the conversion transaction (after taking into account the impact of section 1374 in the interim period, as described subsequently).
For the taxable year in which the related section 355 distribution occurs, the REIT's net recognized built-in gain is the amount of its net unrealized built-in gain limitation (as defined in § 1.1374-2(a)(3)) for such taxable year. For this purpose, the limitations in § 1.1374-2(a)(1) and (2) do not apply because the net unrealized built-in gain limitation generally achieves the effect of a deemed sale election, adjusted for prior recognized built-in gains and recognized built-in losses. As a result, the temporary regulations cause the REIT to recognize any built-in gains or losses attributable to time periods in which the REIT was a C corporation while ensuring that gains and losses recognized in previous taxable years during the recognition period on which taxes have been paid are accounted for appropriately. The temporary regulations provide an appropriate increase to the basis of the converted property held by the REIT.
Consistent with section 311 of the PATH Act, the temporary regulations contain two exceptions. First, the temporary regulations do not apply if both the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation are REITs immediately after the date of the section 355 distribution and at all times during the two years thereafter. Second, the temporary regulations also do not apply to certain section 355 distributions in which the distributing corporation is a REIT and the controlled corporation is a taxable REIT subsidiary. In addition, and consistent with the effective date in section 311(c) of the PATH Act, the temporary regulations under § 1.337(d)-7T(f) do not apply to distributions pursuant to a transaction described in a ruling request initially submitted to the IRS on or before December 7, 2015, which request has not been withdrawn and with respect to which a ruling has not been issued or denied in its entirety as of December 7, 2015.
To prevent avoidance, these temporary regulations apply to predecessors and successors of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation and to all members of the separate affiliated group, within the meaning of section 355(b)(3)(B), of which the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation are members. Predecessors and successors include corporations that succeed to and take into account items described in section 381(c) of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, and corporations having such items to which the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation succeed and take into account.
The temporary regulations also make a clarifying amendment to the generally applicable rules of § 1.337(d)-7 in response to section 127 of the PATH Act, which amended Code section 1374(d)(7) to provide that the term “recognition period” means the 5-year period beginning with the first day of the first taxable year for which a corporation was an S corporation. The temporary regulations replace the term “10-year recognition period” with the new defined term “recognition period” and clarify that the recognition period is no longer determined by reference to section 1374(d)(7), but is the ten-year period beginning on the first day of the RIC or the REIT's first taxable year (in the case of a conversion transaction that is a qualification of a C corporation as a RIC or a REIT) or on the date the property is acquired by the RIC or the REIT. As a result, after August 8, 2016, § 1.337(d)-7 will no longer be affected by section 127 of the PATH Act, which amended section 1374(d)(7) of the Code to shorten the length of the recognition period from 10 years to 5 years with respect to C corporations that elect to be, or transfer property to, S corporations.
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, notices, and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations because good cause exists under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA to dispense with notice and public comment because doing so would be contrary to the public interest. These temporary regulations are necessary to prevent abuse of section 311 of the PATH Act through certain section 355 distributions that would contradict the intent of Congress. These temporary regulations are also necessary to update existing regulations under § 1.337(d)-7 to delink the determination of the recognition period from the rules of section 1374(d)(7) modified by the enactment of section 127 of the PATH Act. Accordingly, good cause exists for dispensing with notice and public
The principal author of these regulations is Austin M. Diamond-Jones, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.337(d)-7T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d) and 355(h).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) * * *
(vi) through (vii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(a)(2)(vi) through (vii).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(2)(iii).
(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(4).
(c)
(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(c)(6).
(f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(f).
(g) * * *
(2)
(ii) through (iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(g)(2)(ii) through (iii).
(a)
(2)(i) through (v) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(a)(2)(i) through (v).
(vi)
(vii)
(b)(1) through (2)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(b)(1) through (2)(ii).
(iii)
(A) In the case of a conversion transaction that is a qualification of a C corporation as a RIC or a REIT, on the first day of the RIC's or the REIT's first taxable year; and
(B) In the case of other conversion transactions, on the day the property is acquired by the RIC or the REIT.
(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(b)(3).
(4)
(ii)
(B)
(5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(b)(5).
(c)
(2) through (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(c)(2) through (5).
(6)
(7) through (e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(c)(7) through (e).
(f)
(i) The C corporation or the REIT engages in a conversion transaction involving a REIT during the twenty-year period beginning on the date that is ten years before the date of a section 355 distribution (the related section 355 distribution); and
(ii) The C corporation or the REIT engaging in the related section 355 distribution is either—
(A) The distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, as those terms are defined in section 355(a)(1); or
(B) A member of the separate affiliated group (as defined in section 355(b)(3)(B)) of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation.
(2)
(3)
(i) The distributing corporation and the controlled corporation are both REITs immediately after the related section 355 distribution (including by reason of elections under section 856(c)(1) made after the related section 355 distribution that are effective before the related section 355 distribution) and at all times during the two years thereafter;
(ii) Section 355(h)(1) does not apply to the related section 355 distribution by reason of section 355(h)(2)(B); or
(iii) The related section 355 distribution is described in a ruling request referred to in section 311(c) of Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2422.
(g)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(h)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, FL. This rule implements restrictions that allow the bridge to remain closed during peak vehicle traffic times. Bridge openings during peak vehicle traffic times cause major traffic jams that may be avoided without negatively impacting vessel traffic on the Indian Creek. Modifying the bridge operating schedule will reduce major vehicle traffic issues during rush hour times.
This rule is effective July 8, 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 Mr. Rod Elkins with the Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-6989, email
On February, 18, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, Florida is a single leaf bascule bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 50 feet. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the 63rd Street Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels. Traffic on the waterway includes both commercial and recreational vessels.
The City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County determined through bridge studies, traffic logs, and public meetings that restricting bridge openings during peak traffic hours will significantly reduce vehicular traffic congestion. Based on this determination, the City of Miami Beach requested this action to alleviate additional traffic congestion created by bridge openings during peak hours.
In addition to changing the schedule to allow for limited openings during the regular work week, the Coast Guard is making a regulatory change that will apply during the annual boat show. Every year in mid-February the City of Miami Beach hosts the Yacht and Brokerage Show which creates unusually high vehicle and vessel traffic during the weeks before and after the show. The Coast Guard typically issues temporary deviations to the 63rd Street Bridge operations that help balance vessel and vehicle needs during those times. The Coast Guard is adopting the annual temporary deviation as part of this bridge regulation. The bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation concurs with this Final Rule change.
There were 508 comments received concerning the proposed rule. Of these comments, 497 were in favor of the proposed rule. Eight comments recommended various additional closure times that place more restrictions on bridge openings and do meet the reasonable needs of navigation. Two comments recommended openings on the hour and half hour at all times of day. The Coast Guard did not adopt these proposals because they are less restrictive than necessary to balance the needs of vehicle traffic during peak travel hours of the day and more restrictive than necessary to accommodate the reasonable needs of maritime navigation outside times of increased vehicle traffic. One comment recommended placing a toll system for openings on the bridge. This rulemaking seeks to set an operating schedule that will balance the needs of vehicle traffic with the reasonable needs of navigation. Therefore, the Coast Guard did not accept this proposal because it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is adding § 117.293 as proposed without change.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the waterway during scheduled openings. Additionally, vessels that are capable of transiting under the bridge in the closed position, may do so at any time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels that require more than eleven feet vertical clearance that need to transit the bridge during daytime closure periods. Vessels will still be allowed to transit this waterway at all times if they can clear without an opening, or at the specified times if they need the bridge open. This change in operating schedule will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation while taking into account other modes of transportation.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge 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
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 E.O. 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 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 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 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, shall open on signal except as follows:
(a) From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.
(b) From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and 4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels.
(c) In February of each year during the period seven days prior to the City of Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage Show and the four days following the show, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., the bridge need not open except for 10 minutes at the top of the hour. At all other times the bridge shall operate on its normal schedule.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks on the Ohio River, from mile marker 470.1 and ending at 470.4, extending 500 feet from the State of Ohio shoreline. This rule is effective during specific home games during the Major League Baseball season. Should the Cincinnati Reds make the playoffs and have additional home games; the Coast Guard will provide notification of enforcement periods via Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate. This action is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the Cincinnati Reds Barge-based fireworks. During the enforcement period, entry into or transiting in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table No. 1, Line no. 2 will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on April 6, April 8, April 22, May 6, May 20, June 3, June 10, June 24, July 15, July 22, July 31, August 19, September 2, September 16, and September 30, 2016.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Caloeb Gandy, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard at telephone 502-779-5334, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801, Table no. 1, Line no. 2. These regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, under 33 CFR 165.801 or in the
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Direct final rule.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is revising its Privacy Act regulations to add a new insider threat system of records to the records exempt from release under the law enforcement exemption of the Privacy Act. This action is necessary to protect investigatory information from release that could compromise or damage the investigation, result in evidence tampering or destruction, undue influence of witnesses, danger to individuals, and similar harmful effects.
This rule is effective July 18, 2016, without further action, unless NARA receives adverse comments warranting action by July 8, 2016. If NARA receives an adverse comment warranting further action, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3095-AB91, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Kimberly Keravuori, by email at
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is adding a system of records to its existing inventory of systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) (“Privacy Act”). The new system is NARA 45, Insider Threat Program records (we are publishing the NARA 45 SORN concurrently with this regulation), and it comprises records gathered for purposes of investigating threats to NARA facilities, personnel, or systems, or national security. The system contains investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged criminal, civil, or administrative violations and law enforcement actions.
The Privacy Act generally grants individuals the right to access agency records maintained about themselves, and the right to request that the agency amend those records if they are not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. However, the Privacy Act also exempts, by means of ten specific exemptions, an agency from granting a person access to information about themselves that the agency compiles for certain types of law enforcement or investigatory actions. Specifically for the purposes of this rulemaking, the Privacy Act exempts an agency from granting access to “investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of this section: Provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section [September 27, 1975], under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.” 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
NARA currently exempts Office of Inspector General investigative files under the (k)(2) exemption. See 36 CFR 1202.92. For similar reasons, we are now adding the insider threat program files to the same regulation section because the Insider Threat Program Records system of records contains investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged violations, compiled for law enforcement purposes. Under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Privacy Act, to qualify for this exemption the agency must compile the material for some investigative “law enforcement” purpose, such as a civil or criminal investigation. Multiple court decisions have upheld the exemption for investigative records covering a range of purposes from discrimination complaints (see,
Routine background investigation files are generally not exempt under the (k)(2) exemption of the Privacy Act, but in some limited cases portions of them may be exempt under (k)(2) because they also include information that would be the subject of a law
NARA maintains a centralized hub for insider threat analysis to (1) manually and electronically gather, integrate, review, assess, and respond to information derived from internal and external sources, and (2) identify potential insider threat concerns and conduct an appropriate inquiry to resolve the concern. Section 811 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1995; executive orders 13587, 13526, 12333, and 10450; Presidential Memorandum, National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs, November 21, 2012; Presidential Memorandum, Early Detection of Espionage and Other Intelligence Activities through Identification and Referral of Anomalies, August 23, 1996; and Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-12, Security Awareness and Reporting of Foreign Contacts, August 5, 1993, authorize these insider threat assessment and investigation activities. As a result, the records in this system of records qualify as investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes under the meaning of the Privacy Act's (k)(2) exemption. NARA is revising its regulations to exempt this information from disclosure under the Privacy Act so that it can prevent these investigations from being impeded or damaged by releasing the information.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (September 30, 1993), and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulation Review, 76 FR 23821 (January 18, 2011), 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). This rule is not “significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because will not create an economic or budgetary impact, create an inconsistency or interfere with other agencies, and does not raise novel issues; it exempts certain records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in accord with established criteria. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulation.
This review requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and publish it when the agency publishes the proposed rule. This requirement does not apply if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). NARA certifies, after review and analysis, that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on small entities because it does not create an economic impact and does not affect small entities; it exempts certain records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Review under Executive Order 13132 requires that agencies review regulations for federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, prepare a Federal assessment to assist senior policy makers. This rule will not have any direct effects on State and local governments within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, the regulation requires no federalism assessment.
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend 36 CFR part 1202 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 44 U.S.C. 2104(a).
(a) The Investigative Files of the Inspector General (NARA-23) and the Insider Threat Program Records (NARA-45) systems of records are eligible for exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) because these record systems contain investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged criminal, civil, or administrative violations, compiled for law enforcement purposes other than within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. If you are denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which you would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the record, NARA will make the record available to you, except for any information in the record that would disclose the identity of a confidential source as described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(b) The systems described in paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and (e)(4), (G) and (H), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because releasing disclosure accounting could alert the subject of an investigation about the alleged violations, about the existence of the investigation, and about the fact that they are being investigated by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Insider Threat Office, or another agency. Releasing these records could provide significant information concerning the nature of the investigation and result in tampering with or destroying evidence, influencing witnesses, endangering individuals involved, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
(2) From the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because access to the information contained in these systems of records could inform the subject of an investigation about an actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violation; about the existence of that investigation; about the nature and scope of the information and
(3) From subsection (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because applying this provision could impair investigations and interfere with the law enforcement responsibilities of the OIG, the Insider Threat Office, or another agency for the following reasons:
(i) It is not possible to detect relevance or need for specific information in the early stages of an investigation, case, or matter. After the investigators evaluate the information, they may establish its relevance and need.
(ii) During an investigation, the investigating office may obtain information about other actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violations, including those outside the scope of its jurisdiction. The office should retain this information, as it may help establish patterns of inappropriate activity, and can provide valuable leads for Federal and other law enforcement agencies.
(iii) When interviewing individuals or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, the investigator may receive information that relates to matters incidental to the primary purpose of the investigation but which may also relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another office or agency. The investigator cannot readily segregate such information.
(4) From subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because these systems are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d), pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.
(5) From subsection (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because these systems are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a finding that the State of California has made a complete New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) to address the permitting of emissions of particulate matter 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diameter and smaller (PM
The effective date of this rule is July 8, 2016.
Laura Yannayon, Air Division (Air-3), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone (415) 972-3534; email
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On October 17, 2006, the EPA promulgated revisions to the NAAQS for PM
To implement the PM
In 2013, certain provisions of EPA's May 16, 2008 final rule were affected by a judicial decision, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that the EPA must regulate PM
The EPA is making a finding that the State of California submitted an NSR SIP revision for EDCAQMD to address NSR requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM
The EPA is making a finding that, as of the date of signature for this document, the State of California has failed to submit the required NSR program SIP revision for YSAQMD to address NSR requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM
If the EPA finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission or that a submitted SIP submission is incomplete for elements of a part D, Title I plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I), then CAA section 179(a) establishes specific consequences, including the imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area. Additionally, such a finding triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the effective date of such finding of failure to submit, if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the required SIP submission before that date.
In this case, if the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the State of California has made the required complete NSR program SIP submission for YSAQMD to address NSR requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment NSR SIPs for major sources to satisfy certain NSR requirements under the CAA for the PM
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment NSR SIPs for major sources to satisfy certain NSR requirements of the CAA for the PM
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule addresses the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment NSR SIPs for major sources to satisfy certain NSR requirements under the CAA for the PM
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it provides EPA's finding that the State of California has failed to make a submission for YSAQMD that is required under the CAA to implement the PM
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding that the State of California has failed to submit a SIP to address certain basic permitting requirements for the PM
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 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 must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved on May 23, 2016, an information collection for FCC Form 611-T, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Annual Report Related to Eligibility for Designated Entity Benefits and 47 CFR 1.2110(n) contained in the Report and Order, FCC 15-80. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
47 CFR 1.2110(n), published at 80 FR 56764 on September 18, 2015 and revised FCC Form 611-T, are effective on July 8, 2016.
For additional information contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on May 23, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements for FCC Form 611-T, FCC Wireless Telecommunication Bureau Annual Report Related to Eligibility for Designated Entity Benefits and 47 CFR 1.2110(n) contained in the Report and Order, FCC 15-80. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1092. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1092, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 23, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the information collection 3060-1092. Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1092. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule implements the decision in
This final rule is effective June 8, 2016.
Information relevant to this final rule are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of this final rule are also available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site:
Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147, fax: 206-526-6736, or email:
This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at
The Magnuson Act requires that any fishery management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce and any implementing regulations be consistent with all provisions of the Act and “any other applicable law.” 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1). “Other applicable law” includes treaties with northwest Indian tribes reserving “the right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations.”
In 1996, NMFS issued a final rule amending its regulations managing West Coast groundfish fisheries and describing the physical boundaries of Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas. This rule described the same areas that had previously been set forth in NMFS regulations. In promulgating the rule, NMFS explained that:
Under this rule, NMFS recognizes the same U&A areas that have been implemented in Federal salmon and halibut regulations for a number of years. The States and the Quileute tribe point out that the western boundary has only been adjudicated for the Makah tribe. NMFS agrees. NMFS, however, in establishing ocean management areas, has taken the adjudicated western boundary for the Makah tribe, and extended it south as the western boundary for the other three ocean tribes. NMFS believes this is a reasonable accommodation of the tribal fishing rights, absent more specific guidance from a court. NMFS regulations, including this regulation, contain the notation that the boundaries of the U&A may be revised by order of the court.
Subsequently, NMFS promulgated regulations to describe the same U&A fishing area boundaries in its regulations for coastal pelagic species and highly migratory species. 66 FR 44986 (August 27, 2001) (coastal pelagic species); 68 FR 68834 (December 10, 2003) (highly migratory species). The same boundaries are also codified in the regulations governing Pacific halibut fisheries. 50 CFR 300.64. Regulations governing Pacific salmon fisheries are not codified, but also use the same boundaries when issued on a yearly basis.
On August 27, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington set forth the boundaries of the U&A fishing areas for the Quileute and the Quinault.
The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal U&A fishing areas are referenced in several places within title 50, part 660. To reduce duplicative regulations and ensure consistency within title 50, part 660, regulations describing the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas are consolidated and moved to § 660.4, subpart A. Cross-references to Pacific coast treaty tribes' U&A fishing areas throughout title 50, part 660 are updated. Minor changes to regulations are made to consistently refer to “U&A fishing areas” rather than “U&As.”
Minor changes are also made to consistently refer to the tribes' U&A fishing areas “within the EEZ.” Regulations at § 660.50(c) previously described tribal U&A fishing areas as “within the fishery management area.” “Fishery management area” is defined slightly differently in the various parts and subparts within title 50, part 660, and include additional details that do not apply for the purpose of describing U&A fishing areas. The term “fishery management area” as it relates to Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas is therefore replaced with the term EEZ, which is defined at § 600.10.
All of the minor regulatory changes described in “Technical Revisions” are non-substantive, and intended to reduce duplicative regulations and bring consistency among the parts and subparts in title 50, part 660, regarding Pacific coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas.
The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the minor regulatory amendments associated with the Court-ordered changes to tribal U&A fishing areas, which this final rule implements, are necessary for conservation and management and are consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable laws.
NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to regulations in this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Affording the time necessary for notice and comment rulemaking for these changes to regulations is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the district court has issued its final judgment and the boundaries adjudicated by the court are controlling. NMFS's regulations must be modified consistent with the court order as quickly as possible to bring them into compliance with the legal requirements. It is further necessary to act quickly to modify the tribal U&A fishing area boundaries and to make related, minor technical corrections in title 50, part 660, to prevent the confusion that arises out of conflicting boundaries, which adds complexity to the management regime and creates problems for state and Federal management and enforcement. Furthermore, NMFS is not exercising any discretion in issuing this rule, but only making the changes necessary to comply with the court order. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The regulations at § 660.50(d) state treaty rights “will be implemented by the Secretary” and regulations will be developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s). The minor regulatory amendments associated with the Court-ordered changes to tribal U&A fishing areas in this final rule have been developed following these procedures.
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian Fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas within the EEZ are set out below in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. Boundaries of a tribe's fishing area may be revised as ordered by a Federal court.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b) [Reserved]
(a) * * *
(14) During times or in areas where at-sea processing is prohibited, take and retain or receive Pacific whiting, except as cargo or fish waste, on a vessel in the fishery management area that already has processed Pacific whiting on board. An exception to this prohibition is provided if the fish are received within the tribal U&A fishing area, described at § 660.4, subpart A, from a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe fishing under § 660.50, subpart C.
(b)
(c)
(e) * * *
(4)
(g) * * *
(11)
(c) * * *
(2) During times or in areas where at-sea processing is prohibited, take and retain or receive Pacific whiting, except as cargo or fish waste, on a vessel in the fishery management area that already has processed Pacific whiting on board. An exception to this prohibition is provided if the fish are received within the tribal U&A fishing area, described at § 660.4, subpart A, from a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe fishing under § 660.50, subpart C.
(a) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes have treaty rights to harvest CPS in their usual and accustomed fishing areas in the EEZ.
(b) For the purposes of this section, Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes means the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, and their “usual and accustomed fishing areas” are described at § 660.4, subpart A.
(a) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes have treaty rights to harvest HMS in their usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas in the EEZ.
(c) The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas within the EEZ are set forth in § 660.4 of this chapter.
(d)
(f) Fishing (on a tribal allocation or under a Federal regulation applicable to tribal fisheries) by a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe within that tribe's U&A fishing area is not subject to provisions of the HMS regulations applicable to non-treaty fisheries.
(h) Fishing by a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe outside that tribe's U&A fishing area, or for a species of HMS not covered by a treaty allocation or applicable Federal regulation, is subject to the HMS regulations applicable to non-treaty fisheries.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish, other than demersal shelf rockfish or sablefish managed under the Individual Fishing Quota Program, by catcher vessels (C/Vs) using hook-and-line gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 10, 2016, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2016.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA is 129 metric tons as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).
In accordance with § 679.21(d)(6)(ii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish, other than demersal shelf rockfish or sablefish managed under the Individual Fishing Quota Program, by C/Vs using hook-
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay closure of the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 1, 2016.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a proposed rule in the
All comments must be received on or before July 13, 2016.
Interested parties may submit written comments on the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices proposed rule using one of the following methods:
•
•
Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division. Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 260-9151.
This notice extends the public comment period provided in the proposed rule published in the
AMS is proposing to amend the organic livestock and poultry production requirements by: Adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living conditions; and expanding and clarifying existing requirements covering livestock health care practices and mammalian living conditions.
To submit comments, or access the proposed rule docket, please follow the instructions provided under the
7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes that would supersede AD 2014-22-01. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 73 11; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On October 20, 2014, we issued AD 2014-22-01, Amendment 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-01”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2014-22-01, PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued revisions to the Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual to include repetitive inspections of the main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2016-0083, dated April 28, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and published in the Pilatus PC-12 Aircraft Maintenance Manual(s) (AMM) under Chapter 4, Structural, Component and Miscellaneous—Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The limitations contained in these documents have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
EASA issued AD 2014-0170 requiring the actions as specified in ALS, Chapter 4 of AMM report 02049 issue 28, for PC-12, PC-12/45 and PC-12/47 aeroplanes, and Chapter 4 of AMM report 02300 issue 11, for PC-12/47E aeroplanes.
Since that AD was issued, Pilatus issued Chapter 4 of PC-12 AMM report 02049 issue 31, and Chapter 4 of PC-12 AMM report 02300 issue 14 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the applicable ALS' in this AD), to incorporate new six-year and ten-year inspection intervals for several main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts, and an annual inspection interval for the MLG shock absorber attachment bolts, which was previously included in the AMM Chapter 5 annual inspection. After a further review of the in-service data, Pilatus issued Service Letter (SL) 186, extending the special compliance time applicable for the MLG bolts inspection.
For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0170, which is superseded, and requires the accomplishment of the new maintenance tasks, as described in the applicable ALS.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued Structural, Component and Miscellaneous—Airworthiness Limitations, document 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015, and Structural and Component Limitations—Airworthiness Limitations, document 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this AD will affect 770 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $98,175, or $127.50 per product. This breaks down as follows:
• Incorporating new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
• New inspections: MLG attachment bolts: 1 work-hour with no parts cost for fleet cost of $65,450 or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary corrective actions (on-condition costs) that must be taken based on the proposed inspections, would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing approximately $100 for a cost of $185 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these necessary corrective actions. This breaks down as follows:
The only costs that would be imposed by this proposed AD over that already
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 25, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2014-22-01, 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014).
This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs), certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this AD:
(1) Before further flight after July 13, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), insert the following revisions into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
(i) STRUCTURAL, COMPONENT AND MISCELLANEOUS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02049, 12-A-AM-00-00-00-I, revision 31, dated November 10, 2015; and
(ii) STRUCTURAL AND COMPONENT LIMITATIONS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12/47E MSN-1001-UP, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12-B-AM-00-00-00-I, revision 14, dated November 6, 2015.
(2) The limitations section revisions listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD do the following:
(i) Establish inspections of the MLG attachment bolts,
(ii) Specify replacement of components before or upon reaching the applicable life limit, and
(iii) Specify accomplishment of all applicable maintenance tasks within certain thresholds and intervals.
(3) Only authorized Pilatus Service Centers can do the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID) as required by the documents in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD because deviations from the type design in critical locations could make the airplane ineligible for this life extension.
(4) If no compliance time is specified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD when doing any corrective actions where discrepancies are found as required in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD, do these corrective actions before further flight after doing the applicable maintenance task.
(5) During the accomplishment of the actions required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, if a discrepancy is found that is not identified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight after finding the discrepancy, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. at the address specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for a repair scheme and incorporate that repair scheme.
(6) Within the next 6 years time-in-service after July 13, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 3 months TIS after July 13, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, inspect the MLG attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion take all necessary corrective actions.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-01, 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014) are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0083, dated April 28, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-03-01, for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2015-03-01 currently requires installing additional attaching hardware on the left and right fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures. Since we issued AD 2015-03-01, there have been updates to the weight and balance data needed to calculate the center of gravity for affected airplanes. This proposed AD would require weight and balance data to be included in the Weight and Balance Manual and applicable logbooks for airplanes modified per Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision B, dated August 1, 2014. The proposed AD would also require the weight and balance data to be used in order to calculate the center of gravity for affected airplanes. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the fuselage and flight control surfaces from dislodged engine fan cowl panels, and prevent incorrect weight and balance calculations. Incorrect weight and balance calculations may shift the center of gravity beyond approved design parameters and affect in-flight control, which could endanger passengers and crew.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 30, 2015, we issued AD 2015-03-01, Amendment 39-18097 (80 FR 7298, February 10, 2015) (“AD 2015-03-01”). AD 2015-03-01 requires installing additional attaching hardware on the left and right fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures. Since we issued AD 2015-03-01, we have determined it is necessary to update the weight and balance data needed to calculate the center of gravity for affected airplanes.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-20R1, dated August 12, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes The MCAI states:
There have been a number of engine fan cowl panel dislodgement incidents reported on the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 aeroplane fleet. The dislodged panels may cause damage to the fuselage and flight control surfaces of the aeroplane. Also, the debris from a dislodged panel may result in runway contamination and has the potential of causing injury on the ground.
Although the majority of the subject panel dislodgements were reported on the first or second flight after an engine maintenance task was performed that required removal and reinstallation of the subject panels, the frequency of the dislodgements indicates that the existing attachment design is prone to human (maintenance) error.
In order to mitigate the potential safety hazard of the subject panel dislodgement, Bombardier had issued Service Bulletin (SB) 601R-71-034 to install additional fasteners for the attachment of the engine fan cowl panels to the nacelle's structure. Compliance of the above SB was mandated by the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2014-20 dated 9 July 2014 [which corresponded to FAA AD 2015-03-01].
Bombardier has now revised the SB 601R-71-034 (to Revision C) requiring weight and balance data to be included in the Weight and Balance manual for aeroplanes modified per the subject SB. This revised [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate compliance with SB 601R-71-034, Rev C.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin, 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015. The service information provides procedures for modifying the fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures. The service information also provides updated weight and balance data. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 497 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2015-03-01 and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $5,458 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-03-01 is $6,138 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $42,245, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 25, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2015-03-01, Amendment 39-18097 (80 FR 7298, February 10, 2015) (“AD 2015-03-01”).
This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by dislodged engine fan cowl panels. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuselage and flight control surfaces from dislodged engine fan cowl panels, and prevent incorrect weight and balance calculations. Incorrect weight and balance calculations may shift the center of gravity beyond approved design parameters and affect in-flight control, which could endanger passengers and crew.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-03-01, with revised service information. Within 6,000 flight hours after March 17, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-03-01): Install attaching hardware on the left and right fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision B, dated August 1, 2014; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015. As of the effective date of this AD, only Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015, may be used.
Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, revise the applicable Weight and Balance Manual to include the weight and balance data specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015.
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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, dated March 31, 2014; or Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision A, dated April 28, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) Global AMOC 15-36, dated August 28, 2015, is approved as an AMOC for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-20R1, dated August 12, 2015. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Lakota, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Lakota Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before July 25, 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-2016-6115 Docket No.16-AGL-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Raul Garza Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part, A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Lakota Municipal Airport, Lakota, ND.
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-2016-6115/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-14.” 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
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 6-mile radius of Lakota Municipal Airport, Lakota, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
(Lat. 48°01′44″ N., long. 098°19′33″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Lakota Municipal Airport.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by August 8, 2016.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-126452-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-126452-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Austin M. Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-5085; concerning the submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
The proposed regulations also include a modification to the definition of converted property that is not addressed in the temporary regulations. This modification treats as converted property any property the basis of which is determined, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of property owned by a C corporation that becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that such property presents similar concerns with regard to the purposes of
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these proposed regulations would primarily affect large corporations with a substantial number of shareholders. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal author of these regulations is Austin M. Diamond-Jones of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 . . .
Section 1.337(d)-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d) and 355(h).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) * * *
(vi) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(a)(2)(vi) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(a)(2)(vi) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(vii)
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(b)(2)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(2)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(b)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(c)
(6) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(c)(6) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(c)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(f) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(f) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(iii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(g)(2)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(g)(2)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(iv)
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule; notice of public hearings.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing to amend the Agency's standards for the examination of working places in metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure that mine operators identify and correct conditions that may adversely affect miners' safety or health. MSHA is proposing to require that an examination of the working place be conducted before miners begin work in an area and that the operator notifies miners in the working place of any conditions found that may adversely affect their safety or health. MSHA is also proposing that the competent person conducting the examination sign and date the examination record before the end of each shift, that the record includes information regarding adverse conditions found and corrective actions taken, and that operators make such records available to miners and their representatives. The proposal would enhance the quality of working place examinations in MNM mines and help assure that violations of mandatory health or safety standards are identified and corrected, thereby improving protections for miners.
Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Time on September 6, 2016.
Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
MSHA will hold four public hearings on the proposed rule to provide the public with an opportunity to present oral statements, written comments, and other information on this rulemaking. The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last presenter speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:
The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. You do not have to make a written request to speak; however, persons and organizations wishing to speak are encouraged to notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes.
Speakers and other attendees may present information to MSHA for inclusion in the rulemaking record. The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply.
A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be available to the public. The transcript may also be viewed on MSHA's Web site at
On July 31, 1969, MSHA's predecessor, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Mines, published a final rule (34 FR 12503) addressing health and safety standards for Metal and Nonmetallic Open Pit Mines; Sand, Gravel, and Crushed Stone Operations; and Metal and Nonmetallic Underground Mines. These standards were promulgated pursuant to the 1966 Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act (MNM Act). The final rule included some mandatory standards and some advisory standards. The final rule at §§ 55.18-8, 56.18-8, and 57.18-8 set forth an advisory standard stating that each working place “should be visited by a supervisor or a designated person at least once each shift and more frequently as necessary to insure that work is being done in a safe manner.”
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) amended the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (Coal Act) to include MNM mines and repealed the MNM Act. The Mine Act retained the mandatory standards and regulations promulgated under the Coal Act and the MNM Act. In addition, section 301(b)(2) of the Mine Act required the Secretary of Labor to establish an advisory committee to review all advisory standards under the MNM Act and to either revoke them or make them mandatory (with or without revision). On August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48490), MSHA revised, renumbered, and made mandatory the Agency's advisory standards regarding working place examinations. This resulted in standards, set forth at §§ 55.18-2, 56.18-2, and 57.18-2, that mirrored the language that currently exists at §§ 56.18002 and 57.18002.
On January 29, 1985 (50 FR 4048), MSHA combined and recodified the standards in 30 CFR parts 55 and 56 into a single part 56 that applies to all surface MNM mines. As a part of this effort, the MNM working place examination standards were redesignated as 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002. No change was made to the language of the standards.
Mining continues to be one of the nation's most hazardous occupations. Mining operations have dynamic work environments where working conditions can change rapidly and without warning. Under the Mine Act, mine operators with the assistance of the miners have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices. Compliance with safety and health standards and adoption of safe work practices provide a substantial measure of protection against hazards that cause accidents, injuries, and fatalities. MSHA has determined that effective accident prevention strategies include an examination of working places.
Under existing §§ 56.18002 and 57.18002, MSHA requires that a competent person designated by the operator examine each working place at least once each shift for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health, that the operator promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions, and that the operator keep records for one year that the examinations were conducted. These standards also require the operator to withdraw persons from an area where conditions may present an imminent danger, except those persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Mine Act, until the danger is abated.
The proposal would require that operators promptly notify miners of any adverse conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health. It would also require that the examination record include additional information that MSHA believes would help assure that adverse conditions are identified and corrected, and that the record be made available to miners and their representatives so that they can be made aware of these conditions. MSHA is proposing that the record include: (1) The locations of all areas examined and a description of each condition found that could adversely affect the safety or health of miners; and (2) a description of the corrective action and date the corrective action was taken. The proposal would also require that the competent person who conducted the examination sign and date the examination record before the end of each shift.
MSHA believes that making and maintaining a record of adverse conditions found and corrective actions taken would help mine operators and miners and their representatives become more aware of potential dangers and more proactive in their approach to correcting these issues before they cause or contribute to an accident, injury, or fatality. Under this proposed rule, MSHA anticipates that improved communication at the mine site about adverse conditions and the best practices used to correct the conditions will encourage awareness and participation at all levels, fostering a culture of safety and health at the mine.
In developing the proposed rule, MSHA reviewed accident investigation reports and the Agency's enforcement data from January 2010 through mid-December 2015. During this period, 122 miners were killed in 110 accidents at MNM mines. MSHA conducted investigations into each of these 110 fatal accidents and issued 252 citations and orders for violations of 95 different mandatory safety and health standards. MSHA's analysis of the accident investigations further revealed that in
At this point, MSHA believes that most operators and miners should be familiar with the RTLB standards. Under the proposal, the additional communication that would be required by operators (1) notifying miners of conditions that violate RTLB standards and other adverse conditions and (2) recording additional information about these conditions in the examination record should further serve to educate miners, their representatives, and operators about adverse conditions and encourage prompt corrective action. In this way, MSHA believes the proposal will help prevent fatalities and other accidents.
Over the years, MSHA has issued Program Policy Letters (PPL) regarding working place examinations, including PPL No. P94-IV-5 (1994); PPL No. P96-IV-2 (1996); PPL No. P10-IV-3 (2010); PPL No. P14-IV-01 (2014); and PPL P15-IV-01 (July 22, 2015). The PPLs are MSHA's guidance and best practices regarding compliance with the existing standards. MSHA inspectors, miners, mine operators, trainers, and the mining community use these PPLs as guidance in determining how best to comply with MSHA's standards on working place examinations.
As discussed in PPL No. P15-IV-01 and other PPLs, MSHA believes that, for a record to provide meaningful information, it should contain the following: (1) The date of the examination; (2) the examiner's name; and (3) the working places examined. As reflected in the PPLs, MSHA also believes that, as a best practice, the record should include a description of the conditions found that adversely affect safety or health.
Effective working place examinations are a fundamental accident prevention tool; they allow operators to find and fix adverse conditions and violations of health and safety standards before they cause injury or death to miners. MSHA believes that notifying miners of adverse conditions in their working place allows the miner to take appropriate precautions until the adverse condition is corrected. Records alert operators to take prompt corrective action. The following are recent examples of adverse conditions that existed for more than one shift prior to causing or contributing to a fatal accident.
In March 2011, a contract supervisor was fatally injured when he was struck by a section of pipe. He was supervising the operation of joining two ends of pipe using a pipe-fusion machine. The positioning cylinder was defective and had been removed from the pipe-fusion machine eight days prior to the accident. Since the positioning cylinder was removed, the machine could not hold the pipe in place. MSHA believes that, had a competent person identified and recorded the adverse condition before miners used the machine, the operator could have warned miners and removed the machine from service until the cylinder was repaired and replaced, thus preventing the fatal accident.
In January 2015, a fatal accident occurred at a phosphate rock mine. A heavy equipment operator was operating an excavator near a water-filled ditch when the excavator tipped on its side, into the water, trapping the miner inside the nearly submerged cab. The equipment operator was rescued from the cab and hospitalized, but died later that day. Three days prior to the accident, several inches of rain fell in the area causing the ditch to fill with water and overflow, making the ditch invisible to persons working in the area. MSHA believes that had a competent person conducted a workplace examination before miners started working in the area the hazard would have been identified; notification to affected miners of the water-filled ditch would have made them aware of the hazardous condition; and a record of the hazardous condition would have prompted corrective action and prevented the fatality.
Another fatal accident in March 2015 involved a haul truck driver at a sand and gravel mine. The driver was driving on an elevated roadway on an embankment next to the mine's dredge pond. The roadway, which was recently established, had no berm as a barrier to the drop-off as required by MSHA standards. The truck went off the roadway into the pond. The driver was hospitalized and died two days later. MSHA believes that the operator should have recognized during a workplace examination that a berm was not in place along the banks of the elevated haul road and warned miners before miners started work in that area. MSHA also believes that a record of this hazard likely would have prompted corrective action and that these actions would have prevented the accident that occurred.
From 2013 through 2015, there were 68 fatalities at MNM mines, as compared with 54 fatalities in the preceding three years (2010-2012). To reduce fatalities at MNM mines, MSHA has engaged, and continues to share best practices and training materials with stakeholders in the MNM industry. The Agency has provided stakeholders with guidance and compliance assistance materials to help mine operators find and fix violations of mandatory safety and health standards. These efforts included stakeholder conferences, online training sessions, and a “walk and talk” safety initiative in which MSHA's inspectors and field staff provided operators and miners information about potentially hazardous tasks and conditions, as well as best mining practices to prevent accidents, injuries, and fatalities. These efforts, however, have not been sufficient to address the increase in fatalities that began in 2013.
This proposed rule is intended to strengthen MSHA's requirements for MNM working place examinations to help prevent the kind of accidents discussed above. MSHA believes that the proposed requirements that operators examine working places before miners begin work in an area and notify miners of any adverse conditions that may adversely affect safety or health would assure that miners and operators are aware of hazards and take proactive actions to correct hazards. In addition, the record required under the proposed rule would help assure that adverse conditions are identified and corrected promptly.
This proposed rule would help reduce common causes of accidents, injuries, and fatalities at MNM mines by enhancing the effectiveness of working place examinations.
Proposed §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) would require an examination of each working place at least once each shift, before work begins in an area, for conditions that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners.
Existing §§ 56.2 and 57.2 define the phrase “working place” as: “any place in or about a mine where work is being performed.” In PPL No. P15-IV-01, MSHA clarifies that “working place” applies to all locations at a mine where miners work in the extraction or milling processes. The Agency further explains that this includes areas where work is performed on an infrequent basis, such as areas accessed primarily during periods of maintenance or clean-up, if miners will be performing work in these areas during the shift. As discussed in previous guidance, the “working place” would not include roads not directly involved in the mining process, administrative office buildings, parking lots, lunchrooms, toilet facilities, or inactive storage areas. Operators would be required to examine isolated, abandoned, or idle areas of mines or mills only when miners have to perform work in these areas during the shift.
The existing standards for examinations of working places in MNM mines in §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) require that a competent person designated by the mine operator examine each working place at least once per shift for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions. While the existing standards permit the examination to be made at any time during the shift, MSHA is proposing that the examination start before work begins in an area. MSHA believes that the proposal is consistent with the remedial intent of the Mine Act and the existing standards. MSHA also believes that the proposed requirement that operators conduct an examination of working places before work begins in an area would provide better protection of miners. MSHA requests comments on whether the Agency should require that examinations be conducted within a specified time period,
Like the existing rule, the proposed rule would require that the examination be made by a competent person designated by the mine operator. In PPL No. P15-IV-01, MSHA emphasized that the competent person designated by the operator to conduct working place examinations should be able to recognize hazards and adverse conditions that are expected or known to occur in a specific work area or that are predictable to someone familiar with the mining industry. MSHA states in various PPLs that, although a best practice is for a foreman or other supervisor to conduct the examination in most cases, an experienced non-supervisory person may also be “competent.” The PPLs emphasized that a competent person designated by the operator under §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) must already have the experience and training to be able to perform the examination and identify safety and health hazards.
MSHA requests comment on whether the Agency should require that the competent person conducting a working place examination have a minimum level of experience or particular training or knowledge to identify workplace hazards. The Agency requests information on whether a competent person should have a certain ability, experience, knowledge, or training that would enable the person to recognize conditions that could adversely affect safety or health. Please provide the rationale, including supporting documentation.
Proposed §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 57.18002(a)(1) incorporate the existing requirements in §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that the mine operator promptly initiate action to correct conditions that may adversely affect safety or health that are found during the examination, and would add a new requirement that the operator promptly notify the miners in any affected areas of any adverse conditions found during the working place examination. MSHA believes that miners need to know about adverse conditions in their working place so that they can take precautions to avoid an accident or injury.
Proposed §§ 56.18002(a)(2) and 57.18002(a)(2) are substantively the same as existing §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c). These provisions would require that, if the competent person finds conditions that may present an imminent danger, these conditions must be brought to the immediate attention of the operator. The operator must immediately withdraw all persons from the affected area until the danger is abated, except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Mine Act who are necessary to eliminate the imminent danger.
Imminent danger is defined in section 3(j) of the Mine Act as the existence of any condition or practice which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm before such condition or practice can be abated. From January 2010 through December 2015, MSHA has issued 1,819 imminent danger orders under section 107(a) of the Mine Act in MNM mines.
MSHA believes that, to be effective, working place examinations must be timely, made by a competent person, and made in the areas where miners work. MSHA is proposing that working place examination records include additional information the Agency believes is necessary to accomplish the intent of the standards.
The proposed rule would add new requirements addressing the contents of the examination record. The introductory text to proposed §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) would continue to require that a record of the working place examination be made. The proposed rule would add the requirement that the competent person who conducted the examination sign and date the record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(1) and 57.18002(b)(1) would require the record to include the locations examined and a description of any adverse conditions found. MSHA believes that this proposed requirement for a description of the adverse conditions found would expedite the correction of these conditions. Proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(2)(i) through (iii) and 57.18002(b)(2)(i) through (iii) are new provisions; they would require that, if any adverse condition is found, the record must include:
• A description of the action taken to correct the adverse condition,
• The date that the corrective action was taken, and
• The name of the person who made the record of the corrective action and the date the corrective action was taken. (MSHA expects that the person taking the corrective action would make this record.)
The proposed rule would redesignate the requirement for recordkeeping in existing §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) as proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(3) and 57.18002(b)(3). Existing §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) require that a record that such working place examinations were conducted shall be kept by the operator for a period of one year and shall be made available for review by the Secretary or his authorized representative. The proposed rule would add new requirements that the record also be made available to miners and their representatives and that a copy be provided to the Secretary or his authorized representative or a miners' representative when they request a copy. MSHA solicits comments on these proposed requirements.
Please provide any other data or information that would be useful to MSHA as the Agency evaluates its proposal related to working place examinations in MNM mines. Please provide the rationale and sufficient detail in your comments to enable proper Agency review and consideration. Where possible, include specific examples to support the rationale and other relevant information, including past experience, studies and articles, and standard professional practices. Include any related cost and benefit data with your submission, and information on economic and technological feasibility.
Based data reported on MSHA Form 7000-2, 90 percent of MNM mines employ fewer than 20 miners. In addition, almost all (98 percent) of MNM mines are surface operations. Over half of all MNM mines are surface sand and gravel or crushed stone operations that operate intermittently or seasonally and employ five or fewer miners. For this reason, MSHA is particularly interested in comments related to the impact of the proposed rule on small mines, particularly comments and suggestions on alternatives and best practices that small mines might use to implement more effective working place examinations.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, 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.
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Based on its assessment of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, would not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. MSHA requests comments on all cost and benefit estimates presented in this preamble and on the data and assumptions the Agency used to develop estimates.
The proposed rule would apply to all MNM mines in the United States. In 2014, there were approximately 11,800 MNM mines employing 145,800 miners, excluding office workers, and 75,800 contractors working at MNM mines.
Table 1 presents the number of MNM mines and employment by mine size.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. mining industry's MNM output in 2014 to be $77.6 billion.
The proposed rule would require additional recordkeeping provisions to assure that adverse conditions are recorded and corrected. The proposed rule would provide for more detailed examination records that include essential information that the operator can use to correct recognized hazards and protect miners. The proposed provisions to record the adverse conditions found during the examinations and the corrective actions taken to mitigate the hazards, and to notify miners of the adverse conditions that may adversely affect safety or health, would better achieve the protections intended under the existing requirements. The additional information recorded in the examination records would assist MSHA, mine operators, and miners in focusing efforts on correcting hazardous conditions.
MSHA is unable to quantify the benefits from this proposed rulemaking, including the proposed provisions that an examination of the working place be conducted before miners begin work in an area; that the operator notify miners in the working place of any conditions found that may adversely affect their safety or health; and that the examination record include a description of the adverse conditions found and the corrective actions taken. MSHA anticipates, however, that there would be benefits from the proposed requirements, such as expedited correction of adverse conditions, which would be expected to result in fewer injuries and fatalities. MSHA requests information and data on the benefits from this proposed rulemaking. Please be specific to facilitate any benefits quantification that may be possible.
Net benefits under MSHA's current analysis would be negative (zero quantified benefits minus quantified costs). MSHA also believes that there would be a financial benefit to MNM mine operators who conduct working place examinations to find and fix adverse conditions and violations of health and safety standards before these conditions cause injury or death. Mine operators who conduct effective working place examinations could achieve a financial benefit from reduced penalties. From January 2010 through December 2015, penalties for MNM mine operators were $152 million for violations of all mandatory safety and health standards.
The quantified cost associated with this proposed rule would be the additional cost for the expanded recordkeeping requirements. Some mine operators already conduct and record working place examinations that satisfy the proposed requirements and would have little or no additional cost. Many adverse conditions found during the working place examination are corrected immediately before miners have an opportunity to encounter the condition; therefore, MSHA also believes that the cost associated with examining areas before miners begin work in that area and with notifying miners of any adverse conditions would be de minimis. MSHA requests information and data on the costs of this proposed rulemaking.
For the purpose of this analysis, MSHA estimates that the competent person making the record of the examination of working places would earn $31.14 (including benefits). The wage rate is from U.S. Metal and Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages, and Benefits—2012 Survey Results, InfoMine USA, Inc., 2012. MSHA updated rates from 2012 to 2014 for inflation using a percent change of 3.8 percent derived from the BLS Employment Cost Index (CIU2010000405000I), total compensation for private industry workers in construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (Index available at
MSHA also estimates that—
• Mines with 1-19 employees operate one shift per day, 300 days per year; and
• Mines with 20+ employees operate two shifts per day, 300 days per year.
MSHA recognizes that there are many seasonal and intermittent mines that would be covered by this proposed rule. MSHA requests information and data on the Agency's estimates on the number of days per year a mine operates; the number of working place examinations made each shift; the number of competent persons required to conduct multiple examinations during a single shift; the amount of time required to record the examination and record corrective actions taken; and the number of shifts per day, by mine size.
The proposed rule would revise existing §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) by adding requirements that the record of the examination include the locations of all areas examined and a description of each adverse condition found, and that the competent person conducting the examination sign and date this record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Also, if an adverse condition is found, the record must include a description of the actions taken to correct the adverse condition, the date that corrective action was taken, and the name of the person updating the record as well as the date the record was updated. MSHA expects that the person taking the corrective action would update the record on completion of the corrective action. MSHA has no data on the number of corrective actions that would be recorded under this proposed rule. However, the Agency believes that the time to record the corrective actions would be minimal at best.
MSHA estimates that it will take a competent person approximately 5 additional minutes to make the record after each examination. MSHA estimates that the annual cost of making this record for all MNM mines is approximately $10.1 million:
• $8.3 million in mines with 1-19 employees (10,599 mines × 1 exam/day × 300 days/yr × 5 mins × $31.14/hr);
• $1.8 million in mines with 20-500 employees (1,162 mines × 2 exams/day × 300 days/yr × 5 mins × $31.14/hr); and
• $40,482 in mines with 501+ employees (26 mines × 2 exams/day × 300 days/yr × 5 mins × $31.14/hr).
Discounting is a technique used to apply the economic concept that the preference for the value of money decreases over time. In this analysis,
MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted cost of the proposed rule over a 10-year period would be approximately $101.0 million, $86.2 million at a 3 percent rate, and $70.9 million at a 7 percent rate. The total undiscounted cost annualized over 10 years would be approximately $10.1 million per year, $9.8 million per year at a 3 percent rate, and $9.4 million per year at a 7 percent rate.
The proposed rule contains recordkeeping requirements; the proposed rule is not technology-forcing. MSHA concludes that the rule is technologically feasible.
MSHA has traditionally used a revenue screening test—whether the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of revenues—to establish presumptively that the regulation is economically feasible for the mining community. The proposed rule is projected to cost approximately $10.1 million per year and the MNM industry has estimated annual revenues of $77.6 billion, which is less than one percent of revenues. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be economically feasible for the MNM mining industry.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency, therefore, is not required to develop an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The factual basis for this certification is presented below.
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the
MSHA has also examined the impact of the proposed rule on mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA and the mining community have traditionally referred to as “small mines.” These small mines differ from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the impact of MSHA's rules and the costs of complying with them will also tend to differ for these small mines. This analysis complies with the requirements of the RFA for an analysis of the impact on “small entities” using both SBA's definition for small entities in the mining industry and MSHA's traditional definition.
MSHA initially evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When estimated compliance costs are less than one percent of the estimated revenues, the Agency believes it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. When estimated compliance costs exceed one percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required. MSHA projects that the proposed compliance costs of $10.1 million for MNM mines with 1 to 500 employees is less than one percent of the $66 billion revenue of these mines in 2014. Proposed compliance costs for MNM mines with 1 to 19 employees is $8.3 million, which is less than one percent of the $23.5 billion revenue of these mines in 2014.
This proposed rule contains changes that affect the burden in an existing paperwork package with OMB Control Number 1219-0089. MSHA estimates that the proposed rule will result in 324,375 additional burden hours with an associated additional cost of approximately $10.1 million annually. MSHA requests information and data on the Agency's estimates used to calculate the additional burden hours in the information collection package for this proposed rule.
Proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(1) and (2) and 57.18002(b)(1) and (2) would revise the existing provisions in §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) by requiring competent persons to include in the record of the examination: (1) The locations of all areas examined, (2) a description of any adverse condition found, (3) a description of the actions taken to correct the adverse condition, and (4) the date that corrective action was taken. The competent person must sign and date this record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Also, if the record is updated, it must include the date and name of the person updating the record.
MSHA estimates that a MNM competent person who conducts working place examinations earns $31.14 an hour (includes benefits, see cost section above). MSHA estimates that—
• Mines with 1-19 employees operate one shift per day, 300 days per year;
• Mines with 20-500 employees operate two shifts per day, 300 days per year; and
• Mines with 501+ employees operate two shifts per day, 300 days per year.
MSHA's estimates of MNM mine operators' additional annual burden hours and burden hour costs for examination records are presented below.
• 10,599 mines (with 1-19 employees) × 1 exam × 300 days × 5 min = 264,975 hr
• 1,162 mines (with 20-500 employees) × 2 exams × 300 days × 5 min = 58,100 hr
• 26 mines (with >500 employees) × 2 exams × 300 days × 5 min = 1,300 hr
• Total Burden Hours = 324,375 hr
• Total Burden Hour Costs = 324,375 hr × $31.14/hr = $10,101,038
There are no other associated burden hour costs because the proposed rule
The information collection package for this proposed rule has been submitted to OMB for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. Comments on the information collection requirements should be sent to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for both offices can be found in the
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that this proposed rule will have no effect on family stability or safety, marital commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this proposed rule would not impact family well-being.
Section 5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 requires Federal agencies to “identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions . . . .” MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not include a regulatory or policy action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12988 contains requirements for Federal agencies promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity, providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule and has determined that it would meet the applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system.
MSHA has determined that this proposed rule will have no adverse impact on children. Accordingly, E.O. 13045 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not have federalism implications because it will 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. Accordingly, E.O. 13132 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects 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. Accordingly, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule for its energy effects because the proposed rule applies to the metal and nonmetal mining sector. Although this proposed rule will result in yearly costs of approximately $10.1 million to the metal and nonmetal mining industry, only the impact on uranium mines is applicable in this case. MSHA data show only three active uranium mines in 2014. The Energy Information Administration's annual uranium report for 2014
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Salzer, Krista Noyes, survey results compilation “2012 U.S. Coal Mines Salaries, Wages, and Benefits—2012, U.S. Metal and Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages, and Benefits”, InfoMine USA, Inc.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, February 2015, page 8.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index CIU2010000405000I, total compensation for private industry workers in construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, Index.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics & Analysis: Domestic Uranium Production Report 2014, April 2015.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions, February 7, 2011.
Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Metals, Mine
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is proposing to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
30 U.S.C. 811.
(a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift, before miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.
(1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any adverse conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.
(2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.
(b) A record of each examination shall be made and the person conducting the examination shall sign and date the record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made.
(1) The record shall include the locations of all areas examined and a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners.
(2) The record also shall include:
(i) A description of the corrective action taken,
(ii) The date that the corrective action was taken, and
(iii) The name of the person who made the record of the corrective action and the date the record of the corrective action was made.
(3) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year; shall make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners; and shall provide these representatives a copy on request.
30 U.S.C. 811.
(a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift, before miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.
(1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any adverse conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.
(2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.
(b) A record of each examination shall be made and the person conducting the examination shall sign and date the record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made.
(1) The record shall include the locations of all areas examined and a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners.
(2) The record also shall include:
(i) A description of the corrective action taken,
(ii) The date that the corrective action was taken, and
(iii) The name of the person who made the record of the corrective action and the date the record of the corrective action was made.
(3) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year; shall make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners; and shall provide these representatives a copy on request.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for information.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is requesting information and data on approaches to control and monitor miners' exposures to diesel exhaust. Epidemiological studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have found that diesel exhaust exposure increases miners' risk of death due to lung cancer. In June 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen. Because of the carcinogenic health risk to miners from exposure to diesel exhaust and to prevent material impairment of miners' health, MSHA is reviewing the Agency's existing standards and policy guidance on controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust to evaluate the effectiveness of the protections now in place to preserve miners' health.
Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Standard Time on September 1, 2016.
Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB86 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
On October 25, 1996, MSHA published a final rule establishing revised requirements for the approval of diesel engines and related components used in underground coal mines; requirements for coal mine operators' monitoring of diesel exhaust emissions; and safety standards for the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines (61 FR 55412). The rule required clean-burning engines on diesel-powered equipment and training for persons maintaining the equipment. The rule also required sufficient ventilating air where diesel-powered equipment is operated.
On January 19, 2001, MSHA published a final rule (66 FR 5526) limiting diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure in underground coal mines. This standard is based on laboratory analysis of engine exhaust. It requires that the exhaust of certain pieces of equipment be restricted to the following prescribed levels:
• Permissible equipment must not emit more than 2.5 grams per hour (g/hr) of DPM;
• Non-permissible heavy-duty equipment, as defined by 30 CFR 75.1908(a) and operated in underground areas of underground coal mines, must not emit more than 2.5 g/hr of DPM (30 CFR 72.501(c));
• Non-permissible light-duty equipment, as defined by 30 CFR 75.1908(b), must not emit more than 5.0 g/hr of DPM (30 CFR 72.502(a)).
Under 30 CFR 72.502(b), non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment must be deemed in compliance with 30 CFR 72.502(a) if it uses an engine that meets or exceeds the applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions requirements. In promulgating its DPM rule, which allows more particulate emissions for light-duty equipment than for heavy-duty equipment, MSHA assumed that diesel engine manufacturers would comply with EPA standards and that, when replacing vehicles in the mine's light-duty fleet, mine operators would purchase newer (new or used) vehicles that met EPA emissions standards, thus accelerating the turnover to a newer generation of technology. MSHA expected a significant reduction in the amount of DPM emitted by the underground fleet as these cleaner engines replaced or supplemented older engines in underground coal mines.
MSHA had considered establishing stricter standards for certain types of equipment and covering more light-duty equipment, but concluded that such actions would either be technologically or economically infeasible for the coal mining industry as a whole at that time. MSHA concluded that the introduction of newer and cleaner engines underground that met EPA standards, and the continued development of after-treatment and other control technologies, would allow additional reductions in DPM levels to become feasible for the industry as a whole.
For this reason, MSHA's January 2001 DPM standards incorporated EPA's then-applicable standards for light-duty diesel engine emissions. In 2004, EPA phased in even lower emissions standards for light-duty diesel engines.
All MSHA diesel equipment is classified as “nonroad” under EPA rules. EPA nonroad diesel engine regulations were structured as a 4-tiered progression. Each tier involved a phased-in lowering of emissions standards over several years based on the size (power) of the engine.
EPA published Tier 1 standards on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31306, 40 CFR part 89) for nonroad compression-ignition engines (which include diesel engines). Under these standards, for engines at and above 130 kilowatts (kW), emissions of particulate matter could not exceed .54 g/kW and carbon monoxide could not exceed 11.4 g/kW. These standards were phased in by engine size for model years 1996 to 2000. In addition, all engines greater than or equal to 37 kW were subject to an oxides of nitrogen (NO
On October 23, 1998, EPA published Tier 1 DPM standards for nonroad compression-ignition engines less than 37 kW (50 hp), setting a 1.2 g/kW-hr particulate matter limit phased in by engine size over model years 1999 and 2000. The rule also established a Tier 1 NO
In addition, the rule required more stringent Tier 2 DPM standards for all nonroad diesel engines, ranging from 1.0 g/kW-hr for the smallest engines to .54 g/kW-hr for the largest engines, phased in by engine size over model years 2001 to 2006. Under the rule, Tier 3 DPM standards for engines 37 kW and above were the same as the Tier 2 standards, but for these engines Tier 3 introduced additional limits for other types of emissions (hydrocarbons plus NO
On June 29, 2004, the EPA published a final rule introducing even lower Tier 4 emissions standards for new compression-ignition engines of all sizes. (69 FR 38958, 40 CFR 1039). This rule provided for “interim” Tier 4 standards applicable to engines for model years 2014 and earlier and final Tier 4 standards applicable to model years after the 2014 model year. Based on engine size, the final standards set particulate matter limits of .04 to .40 g/kW-hr, NO
In 2001, MSHA published a final rule establishing new health standards for underground metal and nonmetal mines that use equipment powered by diesel engines (30 CFR part 57). This rule established a concentration limit for DPM and required mine operators to use engineering and work practice controls to reduce DPM to that limit. Operators were required to comply in accordance with a phase-in period, with the final limit to be in effect by January 20, 2006. In the rule, MSHA provided operators with the opportunity to obtain a special extension if engineering and work practice controls that would reduce a miner's personal exposure to the final exposure limit could not be implemented by the deadline due to technological constraints. This extension opportunity did not apply to newer mines.
MSHA published another final rule (70 FR 32868; June 6, 2005) that replaced the concentration limit for DPM exposures of MNM miners from a total carbon (TC) permissible exposure limit (PEL) to a comparable elemental carbon (EC) PEL. This was not intended to be a substantive change to the exposure limits; rather, MSHA believed that EC renders a more accurate measure of DPM exposure than does TC. The first phase of the PEL reduction would have required a PEL of 308 micrograms of EC per cubic meter of air (308
After publishing this 2005 rule, however, MSHA found that the engineering applications and related technological implementation issues were more complex and extensive than previously thought. In response, the Agency published a proposed rule (70 FR 53280; September 7, 2005) seeking specific comments and data on an appropriate conversion factor for the final DPM limit from TC to EC and related technological implementation issues.
On May 18, 2006, MSHA published a final rule (71 FR 28924) that reverted back to using TC to measure DPM exposure. This rule phased-in a final DPM PEL of 160 micrograms of TC per cubic meter of air (160
MSHA stated that the development of high temperature disposable diesel particulate filter (HTDPF) systems would fill a critical gap in available filter technology because they demonstrated high filtration efficiency for EC, and did not increase NO
In the May 18, 2006 final rule, MSHA also: (1) Finalized provisions addressing medical evaluation and transfer of miners who are unable to wear respirators for medical reasons; (2) committed the Agency to proposing a rule in the near future to convert the DPM limit from TC to EC; (3) deleted the provision that restricts newer mines from applying for an extension of time in which to meet the final concentration limit; and (4) addressed technological and economic feasibility issues and the costs and benefits of the rule. 30 CFR part 57. In accordance with the phase-in schedule, the DPM PEL was reduced to 350
On May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29058), MSHA published a
The existing standards are based on a miner's personal exposure to DPM and specify that, in an underground MNM mine, such exposure must not exceed an average 8-hour equivalent, full-shift airborne concentration of 160 micrograms of total carbon (TC) per cubic meter of air (160
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Silverman
D. Silverman
M. Attfield
Silverman
Both the case-control study (Silverman
On June 12, 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
In November 2015, the Health Effects Institute
Following the IARC classification of diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen, MSHA issued two Health Hazard Alerts: one on diesel exhaust and DPM in underground coal and MNM mines, and one on nitrogen dioxide (NO
MSHA issued a second Health Hazard Alert on August 6, 2013. The alert reinforced the dangers of platinum-based particulate filters as a source of increased concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio require diesel-powered equipment used in underground coal mines to include an exhaust emissions control and conditioning system that meets the following requirements:
• DPM emissions that do not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams of DPM per cubic meter of air (mg/m
• An oxidation catalyst or other gaseous emissions control device capable of reducing undiluted carbon monoxide (CO) emissions to 100 parts per million (ppm) or less under all conditions of operation within the normal engine operating temperature range.
• A DPM filter capable of reducing DPM concentrations by at least 75 percent (West Virginia) or by an average of 95 percent (Pennsylvania) or to a level that does not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m
In addition, West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania limit ambient concentrations of exhaust gases to a ceiling of 35 parts per million (ppm) for carbon monoxide (CO) and 3 ppm for nitrogen dioxide (NO
All three states require mine operators to keep written records of emissions tests, pre-operational examinations, and maintenance and repairs for all diesel equipment operated underground. These states also require specific information to be recorded that MSHA does not require,
MSHA requests information and data on the effectiveness of the existing standards in controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust, including DPM. MSHA specifically requests input from industry, labor, and other interested parties on approaches that may enhance control of DPM and diesel exhaust exposures to improve protections for miners in underground coal and MNM mines. When responding—
• Address your comments to the topic and question number. For example, the response to questions regarding underground coal mines, Question 1, would be identified as “A.1”.
• Explain the rationale supporting your views and, where possible, include specific examples.
• Provide sufficient detail in your responses to enable proper Agency review and consideration.
• Identify the information on which you rely and include applicable experiences, data, models, calculations, studies and articles, standard professional practices, availability of technology, and costs.
MSHA invites comment in response to the specific questions posed below and encourages commenters to include any related cost and benefit data, and any specific issues related to the impact on small mines.
It has been 14 years since MSHA promulgated its DPM rule for
To assist MSHA in determining whether it is feasible to lower the emissions limits for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment to 2.5 g/hr of DPM or less, please respond to the following questions. For each response, please provide data, the specific type of equipment, manufacturer, engine type, filter type, level of DPM, and comments that support your response.
1. Is there evidence that non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment currently being operated in underground mines emits 2.5 g/hr of DPM or less? If so, please provide this evidence.
2. What administrative, engineering, and technological challenges would the coal mining industry face in meeting a 2.5 g/hr DPM emissions level for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment?
3. What costs would the coal mining industry incur to lower emissions of DPM to 2.5 g/hr or less on non-permissible, light-duty diesel-powered equipment? What are the advantages, disadvantages of requiring that light-duty diesel-powered equipment emit no more than 2.5 g/hr of DPM?
4. What percentage of non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment operating underground does not meet the current EPA emissions standards?
5. What modifications could be applied to non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment to meet current EPA emissions standards? What percentage of this equipment could not be modified to meet current EPA emissions standards? If these are specific types of equipment, please list the manufacturers and model numbers.
6. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with requiring all non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment operating in underground coal mines to meet current EPA emissions standards? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response.
7. West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio limit diesel equipment in the outby areas of underground coal mines based on the air quantity approved on the highest ventilation plate. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of MSHA adopting such an approach?
Performing routine preventive maintenance of diesel engines helps ensure that the engines are maintained in approved condition. Under 30 CFR 75.1914(f), all diesel-powered equipment must be examined and tested weekly in accordance with approved checklists and manufacturers' maintenance manuals. Under 30 CFR 75.1914(g), diesel-powered equipment approved under 30 CFR part 36 and non-permissible, heavy-duty, diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines are tested and evaluated on a weekly basis in accordance with mine operator-developed standard operating procedures. These procedures must provide for carbon monoxide sampling; carbon monoxide concentration must not exceed 2500 parts per million.
8. What would be the advantages, disadvantages, safety and health benefits, and costs of testing non-permissible, light-duty, underground diesel-powered equipment on a weekly basis for carbon monoxide as required for permissible diesel-powered equipment and non-permissible, heavy-duty, diesel-powered equipment?
9. Reducing the emissions of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO
10. Should MSHA require that diagnostics system tests include engine speed (testing the engine at full throttle against the brakes with loaded hydraulics), operating hour meter, total intake restriction, total exhaust back pressure, cooled exhaust gas temperature, coolant temperature, engine oil pressure, and engine oil temperature, as required by some states? Why or why not?
11. What would be the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with requiring additional records to document the testing and maintenance of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines, such as the testing described above? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response.
12. If your mine is in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, what is your experience with the resources expended to keep testing records? How have these records been used,
13. Please provide information related to additional training requirements for persons who operate and maintain diesel equipment. Please be specific on the types of training required, time associated with training, and additional safety and health benefits provided.
Options for reducing diesel exhaust emissions that are available include integration of advanced technologies into new engine designs and exhaust after-treatment systems. Reduction of diesel exhaust emissions prior to their release into the mine environment is an effective strategy used to prevent or reduce exposure of underground miners to diesel exhaust. The underground coal and MNM mining industries use exhaust after-treatment technology to control and reduce DPM and gaseous emissions from the existing fleet of diesel-powered equipment. While existing DPM standards provide for flexibility of controls to reach the required limit (
MSHA is requesting information on the types and effectiveness of exhaust after-treatment technologies used in underground mines. Please describe some best practices for selecting and using after-treatment devices.
14. What exhaust after-treatment technologies are currently used on diesel-powered equipment? What are the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining these after-treatment technologies and by how much did they reduce DPM emissions? How durable and reliable are after-treatment technologies and how often should these technologies be replaced? Please be specific and include examples and the rationale for your response.
15. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of using DPM filters capable of reducing DPM concentrations by at least 75 percent or by an average of 95 percent or to a level that does not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m
16. What sensors (
17. Are integrated engine and exhaust after-treatment systems used to control DPM and gaseous emissions in the mining industry? If so, please describe the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining integrated systems, and the reduction in DPM emissions produced.
18. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of requiring that all light-duty diesel-powered equipment be equipped with high-efficiency DPM filters?
As discussed above, on June 29, 2004, EPA adopted Tier 4 diesel engine standards. These standards are performance-based and technology-neutral in the sense that manufacturers are responsible for determining which emissions control technologies will be needed to meet the requirements. Engine manufacturers will produce new engines with advanced emissions control technologies to comply with Tier 4 emissions standards. Exhaust emissions from these engines are expected to decrease by more than 90 percent.
19. In the mining industry, are operators replacing the engines on existing equipment with Tier 4i (interim) or Tier 4 engines? If so, please specify the type of equipment (make and model) and engine size and tier. Please indicate how much it costs to replace the engine (parts and labor).
20. What types of diesel equipment purchased new for use in the mining industry is powered by Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines? What types of diesel-powered equipment, purchased used for use in the mining industry, are powered by Tier 3, Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines?
21. Are Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines used in underground mines equipped with diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems (
22. How long have Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines been in use in the mining industry and what additional cost is associated with maintaining equipment equipped with these engines?
23. What percentage of underground coal mines' total diesel equipment inventory is equipped with Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines?
Under the existing standards, MSHA uses total carbon (TC) measurements as a surrogate for DPM when determining MNM miners' DPM exposures.
24. MSHA requests information on alternative surrogates, other than TC, to estimate a miner's DPM exposure. What is the surrogate's limit of detection and what are potential interferences in a mine environment?
25. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs for using the alternative surrogate to determine a MNM miner's exposure to DPM? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response.
26. MSHA requests information on advances in sampling and analytical technology and other methods for measuring a MNM miner's DPM exposure that may allow for a reduced exposure limit.
MSHA analyzed its sampling data from 2006 (when the final PEL was published) to 2015, and found that the average exposures of MNM miners decreased by 57 percent from 253
27. What existing controls were most effective in reducing exposures since 2006? Are these controls available and applicable to all MNM mines?
28. Based on MSHA's data, MNM miners' average exposures are well below the existing standard of 160
Please provide any other data or information that may be useful to MSHA in evaluating miners' exposures to harmful diesel exhaust emissions, including the effectiveness of existing control mechanisms for reducing harmful diesel emissions and limiting miners' exposures to harmful diesel exhaust emissions.
30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for all water extending 300 feet from the left descending bank into the Ohio River from mile 42.5 to mile 43.0. This proposed rule would be needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a land based fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0335 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh,
On April 6, 2016, the Chester Volunteer Fire Department notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The fireworks will be launched from land in the vicinity of Ohio River mile 42.5 to mile 43.0 along the left descending bank. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, 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 safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The safety zone would cover the waters extending 300 feet from the left descending bank into the Ohio River from mile 42.5 to mile 43.0. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
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.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration, of the safety zone and the low traffic nature of this area. The safety zone would close a small portion of the Ohio River for less than two hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow other waterway users to seek permission to enter the zone. Requests to transit the safety zone area would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV. A. above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
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 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 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
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
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)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative at 412-221-0807. 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)
(e)
Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Secretary proposes an additional priority for use in any appropriate grant program for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and future years. The Secretary proposes to add this priority to the existing supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs that were published in 2014. This priority reflects our current policy objectives and emerging needs in education.
We must receive your comments on or before July 8, 2016.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email, or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Ramin Taheri, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E343, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5961 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of our programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
In addition to the negative effects of concentrated poverty on education, many schools and communities continue to suffer the effects of racial segregation, and some of our Nation's largest school districts remain starkly segregated along both racial and economic lines. Accordingly, the Department believes that it is imperative for schools, school districts, States, and postsecondary institutions to take lawful steps to increase student-body diversity based on race and ethnicity. Using the Secretary's existing priority on Promoting Diversity, published in the
Projects that are designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in educational settings by addressing one or more of the following:
(a) Using established survey or data-collection methods to identify socioeconomic stratification and related barriers to socioeconomic diversity at the classroom, school, district, community, or regional level.
(b) Developing, evaluating, or providing technical assistance on evidence-based policies or strategies designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in schools.
(c) Designing or implementing, with community input, education funding strategies, such as the use of weighted per-pupil allocations of local, State, and eligible Federal funds, to provide incentives for schools and districts to increase socioeconomic diversity.
(d) Developing or implementing policies or strategies to increase
(i) Are evidence-based;
(ii) May be carried out on an intra-district, inter-district, community, or regional basis;
(iii) Demonstrate ongoing, robust family and community involvement, including a process for intensive public engagement and consultation;
(iv) Reflect coordination with other relevant government entities, including housing or transportation authorities, to the extent practicable;
(v) May be based on an existing, public diversity plan or diversity needs assessment; and
(vi) May include, for example—
(A) Establishing school assignment or admissions policies that are designed to give preference to low-income students, students from low-performing schools, or students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty to attend higher-performing schools;
(B) Establishing or expanding schools that are designed to attract substantial numbers of students of different socioeconomic backgrounds, such as magnet or theme schools, charter schools, or other schools of choice.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. District Court for Alaska in its October 17, 2011, order in
Following the Court's decision, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA-Forest Service (USDA-FS) started a review of hundreds of potential pre-statehood (January 3, 1959) withdrawals in the marine waters of the Tongass National Forest. In April and October of 2015, BLM submitted initial lists of submerged public lands to the Board. This proposed rule would add those submerged parcels to the subsistence regulations to ensure compliance with the Court order. Additional listings will be published as BLM and the USDA-FS continue their review of pre-statehood withdrawals.
•
•
We will post all comments on
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or
Under Title VIII of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. This program provides a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out this program in the
Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program (Program). The Board comprises:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service;
• The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management;
• The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service; and
• Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Through the Board, these agencies and public members participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.
In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Regional Advisory Council (Council). The Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.
The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils have a substantial role in reviewing this proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. The Federal Subsistence Board, through the Councils, will hold public meetings on this proposed rule at the following locations in Alaska, on the following dates:
A public notice of specific dates, times, and meeting locations will be published in local and statewide newspapers prior to each meeting. Locations and dates may change based on weather or local circumstances. The Regional Advisory Council's agenda determines the length of each Council meeting based on workload.
The Board will discuss and evaluate submitted comments and public testimony on this proposed rule during a public meeting scheduled for January 2017 in Anchorage, Alaska. The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Chairs, or their designated representatives, will present their respective Councils' recommendations at the Board meeting. Additional public testimony may be provided to the Board on this proposed rule at that time. At that public meeting, the Board will deliberate and make final recommendations to the Secretaries on this proposed rule.
You may submit written comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The Federal Subsistence Board is committed to providing access to these meetings for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to Deborah Coble, 907-786-3880,
As expressed in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the Federal officials that have been delegated authority by the Secretaries are committed to honoring the unique government-to-government political relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as listed in 75 FR 60810 (October 1, 2010). Consultation with Alaska Native corporations is based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act does not provide specific rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, because tribal members are affected by subsistence fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this proposed rule.
The Board will engage in outreach efforts for this proposed rule, including a notification letter, to ensure that Tribes and Alaska Native corporations are advised of the mechanisms by which they can participate. The Board provides a variety of opportunities for consultation: Proposing changes to the existing rule; commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Advisory Council meetings; engaging in dialogue
The Board will consider Tribes' and Alaska Native corporations' information, input, and recommendations, and address their concerns as much as practicable.
The
Most of the marine waters within the Tongass National Forest were not initially identified in the regulations as public lands subject to the subsistence priority based upon a determination that the submerged lands were State lands, and later through reliance upon a disclaimer of interest filed by the United States in
When the United States took over the subsistence program in Alaska in 1990, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture stated in response to comments on the scope of the program during promulgation of the interim regulations that “the United States generally does not hold title to navigable waters and thus navigable waters generally are not included within the definition of public lands” (55 FR 27115; June 29, 1990). That position was changed in 1999 when the subsistence priority was extended to waters subject to a Federal reserved water right following the
In its May 31, 2011, order, the Court stated that the petition process was not sufficient and found that “concerns about costs and management problems simply cannot trump the congressional policy that the subsistence lifestyle of rural Alaskans be preserved as to public lands.” The Court acknowledged in its order that inventorying all these lands could be an expensive undertaking, but that it is a burden “necessitated by the `complicated regulatory scheme' which has resulted from the inability of the State of Alaska to implement Title VIII of ANILCA.” The Court then “enjoined” the United States “to promptly initiate regulatory proceedings for the purpose of implementing the subsistence provisions in Title VIII of ANILCA with respect to submerged public lands within Tongass National Forest” and directed entry of judgment.
The BLM and USDA-FS started a time- and resource-consuming review of hundreds of potential pre-statehood (January 3, 1959) withdrawals in the marine waters of the Tongass National Forest. Both agencies are reviewing their records to identify dock sites, log transfer sites, and other areas that may not have passed to the State at statehood. The review process is ongoing and expected to take quite some time.
In April and October of 2015, BLM submitted initial listings of parcels of submerged public lands to the Board. This proposed rule will add those listings to the subsistence regulations to ensure compliance with the Court's order. Additional listings will be published as BLM and USDA-FS continue their reviews of pre-statehood withdrawals. In addition, this proposed rule would make nonsubstantive changes to 36 CFR 242.3 and 50 CFR 100.3 to correct errors, such as misspellings and punctuation errors, which occur in the existing regulations.
Because this proposed rule concerns public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.
A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under
An ANILCA § 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final § 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management
During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of the subsistence program regulations was conducted in accordance with § 810. This evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the regulations will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA § 810(a).
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these proposed regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Secretaries have determined that these proposed regulations meet the applicable standards provided in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not provide specific rights to tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this proposed rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Secretaries, through the Board, will provide a variety of opportunities for consultation: commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.
This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these proposed regulations under the guidance of Gene Peltola of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by:
• Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;
• Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Trevor Fox, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional Office, USDA—Forest Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Secretaries propose to amend 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
(5) Southeastern Alaska, including the:
(i) Makhnati Island Area: Land and waters beginning at the southern point of Fruit Island, 57°02′35″ north latitude, 135°21′07″ west longitude as shown on United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8244, May 21, 1941; from the point of beginning, by metes and bounds; S. 58° W., 2,500 feet, to the southern point of Nepovorotni Rocks; S. 83° W., 5,600 feet, on a line passing through the southern point of a small island lying about 150 feet south of Makhnati Island; N. 6° W., 4,200 feet, on a line passing through the western point of a small island lying about 150 feet west of Makhnati Island, to the northwestern point of Signal Island; N. 24° E., 3,000 feet, to a point, 57°03′15″ north latitude, 134°23′07″ west longitude; East, 2,900 feet, to a point in course No. 45 in meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496, on west side of Japonski Island; southeasterly, with the meanders of Japonski Island, U.S. Survey No. 1,496 to angle point No. 35, on the southwestern point of Japonski Island; S. 60° E., 3,300 feet, along the boundary line of Naval reservation described in Executive Order No. 8216, July 25, 1939, to the point of beginning, and that part of Sitka Bay lying south of Japonski Island and west of the main channel, but not including Aleutski Island as revoked in Public Land Order 925, October 27, 1953, described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the southeast point of Japonski Island at angle point No. 7 of the meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496; thence east approximately 12.00 chains to the center of the main channel; thence S. 45° E. along the main channel approximately 20.00 chains; thence S. 45° W. approximately 9.00 chains to the southeastern point of Aleutski Island; thence S. 79° W. approximately 40.00 chains to the southern point of Fruit Island; thence N. 60° W. approximately 50.00 chains to the southwestern point of Japonski Island at angle point No. 35 of U.S. Survey No. 1496; thence easterly with the meanders of Japonski Island to the point of beginning including Charcoal, Harbor, Alice, Love, and Fruit islands and a number of smaller unnamed islands.
(ii) Tongass National Forest:
(A) Beacon Point, Frederick Sound, and Kupreanof Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8210—Sheet No. 16. The reference location is marked as 57 south, 79 east, CRM, SEC 8, U.S. Survey No. 1604. The point begins on the low-water line at N. 63° W., true and approximately 1,520 feet from Beacon Point beacon; thence due south true 1,520 feet; thence true East 1,800 feet, more or less to an intersection with a low-water line; thence following, is the low-water line round the point to point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 133°00′ W. Lat. 56°56
(B) Bushy Island and Snow Passage are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart, labeled No. 8160—Sheet No. 12. The reference location is marked as 64 south, 80 east, CRM, SEC. 31/32 on the map labeled, USS 1607. The point begins on a low-water line about
(C) Cape Strait, Frederick Sound, and Kupreanof Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8210—Sheet No. 16. The reference location is marked as 56 south, 77478 east, CRM, on the map labeled as USS 1011. It begins at a point on a low-water line that is westerly from the lighthouse and distant 1,520 feet in a direct line from the center of the concrete pier upon which the light tower is erected; thence South 45° E., true by 1,520 feet; thence east true by 1,520 feet, more or less to an intersection with the low-water line; thence north-westerly and westerly, following the windings of the low-water line to the point of beginning (Approx. Long. 133°05′ W. Lat. 57°00′ N.).
(D) Point Colpoys and Sumner Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Prince of Wales Island—Sheet No. 12. The reference location is marked as 64 south, 78 east, CRM, SECs. 10, 11, 12 on the map labeled as USS 1634. Location is north of a true east-and-west line running across the point to 1,520 feet true south from the high-water line at the northernmost extremity. Map includes all adjacent rocks and ledges not covered at low water and also includes two rocks awash about 1
(E) Vank Island and Stikine Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 18. Located at 62 south, 82 east, CRM, SEC 34, on the map labeled as USS 1648. This part of the island is lying south of a true east-and-west line that is drawn across the island from low water to low water. Island is 760 feet due North from
(F) High Point, and Woronkofski Island, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 18. The location begins at a point on low water at the head of the first bight easterly of the point and about
(G) Key Reef and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 11. The reef lies 1
(H) Low Point and Zarembo Island, Alaska, are shown on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 22. The location begins at a point on a low-water line that is 760 feet in a direct line, easterly, from the center of Low Point Beacon. The position is located on a point of shoreline about 1 mile easterly from Low Point; thence S. 35°, W true 760 feet; thence N. 800 feet and W. 760 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the low-water line to the point of beginning (Approx. Long. 132°55
(I) McNamara Point and Zarembo Island, Alaska, are shown on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 25. Location begins at a point on a low-water line that is 1,520 feet in a direct line, northerly, from McNamara Point Beacon—a slatted tripod structure; thence true east 1,520 feet; thence true south, more or less, 2,500 feet to an intersection with the low-water line; thence northwesterly and northerly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 133°04′ W. Lat. 56°20′ N.).
(J) Mountain Point and Wrangell Narrows, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8170—Sheet No. 27. The location begins at a point on a low-water line southerly from the center of Mountain Point Beacon and distant there from 1,520 feet in a direct line; thence true west 1,520 feet; thence true north, more or less, 3,480 feet to an intersection with the low-water line; thence southeasterly and southerly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°57
(K) Angle Point, Revillagigedo Channel, and Bold Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8075—Sheet No. 3. The reference location is marked as 76 south, 92 east, CRM, USS 1603. The location begins at a point on a low-water line abreast of the lighthouse on Angle Point, the southwestern extremity of Bold Island; thence easterly along the low-water line to a point that is 3,040 feet in a straight line from the beginning point; thence N. 30° W. True 3,040 feet; thence true west to an intersection with the low-water line, 3,000 feet, more or less; thence southeasterly along the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 131°26′ W. Lat. 55°14′ N.).
(L) Cape Chacon, Dixon Entrance, and Prince of Wales Island are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8074—Sheet No. 29. The reference location is marked as 83 south, 89 and 90 east, CRM, USS 1608. The location begins at a point at the low-water mark on the shore line of Dixon Entrance from which the southern extremity of Cape Chacon bears south 64° true East and approximately
(M) Lewis Reef and Tongass Narrows are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8094—Sheet No. 71. The reference location is marked as 75 south, 90 east, CRM, SEC 9. The area point begins at the reef off of Lewis Point and partly bare at low water. This part of the reef is not covered at low water and lies on the northeast side of a true northwest-and-southeast line that is located 300 feet true southwest from the center of the concrete pier of Lewis Reef Light (Approx. Long. 131°44
(N) Lyman Point and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey, Chart No. 8076—Sheet No. 8. The reference location is marked as 73 south, 86 east, CRM, SEC 13, on a map labeled as USS 2174 TRC. It begins at a point at the low-water mark. The aforementioned point is 300 feet in a direct line easterly from Lyman Point light; thence due south 300 feet; thence due west to a low-water mark 400 feet, more or less; thence following the winding of the low-water mark to place of beginning (Approx. Long. 132°18′ W. Lat. 35°35′ N.).
(O) Narrow Point, Clarence Strait, and Prince of Wales Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8100—Sheet No. 9. The reference location is marked as 70 south, 84 east, CRM, on a map labeled as USS 1628. The point begins at a point on a low-water line about 1 nautical mile southerly from Narrow Point Light, from which point a left tangent to a high-water line of an islet about 500 yards in diameter and about 300 yards off shore, bears south 30° true East; thence north 30° W., true 7,600 feet; thence N. 60° E., 3,200 feet, more or less to an intersection with a low-water line; thence southeasterly, southerly, and southwesterly, following the winding of the low-water line to the point of the beginning. The map includes all adjacent rocks not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°28′ W. Lat. 55°47
(P) Niblack Point, Cleveland Peninsula, and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8102—Sheet No. 6, which is the same sheet used for Caamano Point. The location begins at a point on a low-water line from which Niblack Point Beacon, a tripod anchored to three concrete piers, bears southeasterly and is 1,520 feet in a direct line; thence true northeast 1,520 feet; thence true southeast 3,040 feet; thence true southwest at 600 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a low-water line; thence northwesterly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°07′ W. Lat. 55°33′ N.).
(Q) Rosa Reef and Tongass Narrows are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8094—Sheet No. 71. The reference location is marked as 74 south, 90 east, CRM, SEC 31. That part of the reef is not covered at low water and lies east of a true north-and-south line, located 600 feet true west from the center of the concrete pier of Rosa Reef Light. The reef is covered at high water (Approx. Long. 131°48′ W. Lat. 55°24′15″ N.).
(R) Ship Island and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8100—Sheet No. 9. The reference location is marked as south, 8 east, CRM, SEC 27. The point begins as a small island on the northwesterly side of the Clarence Strait, about 10 nautical miles northwesterly from Caamano Point and
(S) Spire Island Reef and Revillagigedo Channel are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8075—Sheet No. 3. The reference location is marked as 76 south, 92 east, CRM, SEC 19.The detached reef, covered at high water and partly bare at low water, is located northeast of Spire Island. Spire Island Light is located on the reef and consists of small houses and lanterns surmounting a concrete pier. See chart for “Angle Pt.” (Approx. Long. 131°30′ W. Lat. 55°16′ N.).
(T) Surprise Point and Nakat Inlet are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8051—Sheet No. 1. The reference location is marked as 80 south, 89 east, CRM. This point lies north of a true east-and-west line. The true east-and-west line lies 3,040 feet true south from the northernmost extremity of the point together with adjacent rocks and islets (Approx. Long. 130°44′ W. Lat. 54°49′ N.).
(U) Caamano Point, Cleveland Peninsula, and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8102—Sheet No. 6. Location consists of everything apart of the extreme south end of the Cleveland Peninsula lying on a south side of a true east-and-west line that is drawn across the point at a distance of 800 feet true north from the southernmost point of the low-water line. This includes off-lying rocks and islets that are not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 131°59′ W. Lat. 55°30′ N.).
(V) Meyers Chuck and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8124—Sheet No. 26. The small island is about 150 yards in diameter and located about 200 yards northwest of Meyers Island (Approx. Long. 132°16′ W. Lat. 55°44
(W) Round Island and Cordova Bay, Alaska, are shown on the U.S coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8145—Sheet No. 36. The Southwestern Island of the group is about 700 yards long, including off-lying rocks and reefs that are not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°30
(X) Mary Island begins at a point that is placed at a low-water mark. The aforementioned point is southward 500 feet from a crosscut on the side of a large rock on the second point below Point Winslow and Mary Island; thence due west
(Y) Tree Point starts a point of a low-water mark. The aforementioned point is southerly
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of revisions to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) visibility transport (prong 4) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0247 at
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at
By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as the requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.
On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual PM
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “each such plan” submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including Greenhouse Gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions;
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes a requirement that a state's implementation plan contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of Title I of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources to impacts on visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
The 2013 Guidance delineates two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO
EPA demonstrated that CAIR achieved greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than BART for NO
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,
Due to CAIR's status as a temporary measure following the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIP revisions to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) unless South Carolina submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiencies. EPA finalized a limited approval of South Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the regional haze rule.
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.
Although South Carolina's infrastructure SIP revisions cite to the regional haze program as satisfying the requirements of Prong 4, the State may not currently rely on its regional haze SIP to satisfy these requirements because the regional haze SIP is not fully approved. In addition, these revisions do not otherwise demonstrate that emissions within the State's jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' plans to protect visibility. Therefore, on April 19, 2016, South Carolina submitted a commitment letter to EPA requesting conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the aforementioned infrastructure SIP revisions.
If South Carolina meets its commitment within one year of final conditional approval, the prong 4 portions of the conditionally approved infrastructure SIP submissions will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP revision(s). However, if the State fails to submit these revisions within the one-year timeframe, the conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval one year from EPA's final conditional approval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval triggers the FIP requirement under CAA section 110(c).
As described above, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• 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
• 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 CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, South Carolina statute 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that because this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on December 11, 2015, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424 at
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9088 or via electronic mail at
On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM
This action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2012 Annual PM
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).”
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Mississippi that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 Annual PM
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
Mississippi's December 11, 2015, infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
1. 110(a)(2)(A):
In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.
Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
2. 110(a)(2)(B):
3. 110(a)(2)(C):
For the 2012 Annual PM
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP is adequate for enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting for major sources and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2012 Annual PM
4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II):
5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii):
6. 110(a)(2)(E):
To satisfy the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Mississippi provides that MDEQ is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards, general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs as found in
To meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements.
To meet its section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations for the 2012 Annual PM
Based upon the review of the above cited laws and provisions, EPA is proposing to approve the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portions of the infrastructure SIP submission as it relates to the public interest requirements of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2) for the 2012 Annual PM
With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the infrastructure SIP submission do not preclude at least a majority of the members of the Mississippi Boards
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates to the public interest requirements of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2) and proposing to disapprove Mississippi's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it pertains to compliance with the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1) for the 2012 Annual PM
7. 110(a)(2)(F):
Additionally, Mississippi is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—NO
8. 110(a)(2)(G):
9. 110(a)(2)(H):
10. 110(a)(2)(J):
11. 110(a)(2)(K):
12. 110(a)(2)(L):
Mississippi's
13. 110(a)(2)(M):
With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the state board majority requirements respecting the significant portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's December 11, 2015, SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for disapproval in this notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• 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
• 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by James Arden Barnett, Jr., Esq., on behalf of Global Automakers, Inc., Ari Q. Fitzgerald, on behalf of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and Stephen E. Coran, on behalf of The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before June 23, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before July 5, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Aole Wilkins, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email:
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3045, released May 20, 2016. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of comment period.
FMCSA and FRA published an ANPRM on March 10, 2016, requesting certain information regarding the evaluation of safety sensitive personnel for moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comment period for the ANPRM is extended from June 8, 2016, to July 8, 2016.
The comment period for the ANPRM published in the
You may submit comments identified by either of the docket numbers listed at the beginning of this document using any one of the following methods:
If you have questions about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Dockets Manager, Docket Services, telephone 202-493-0402.
FMCSA and FRA encourage you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document (FMCSA-2015-0419 or FRA-2015-0111), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA and FRA recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA and FRA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this document based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents available in the docket, go to
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its potential rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On May 18, 2016, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) requested an extension to the comment period (Docket ID: FMCSA-2015-0419-0348) in order to review the results from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) Commercial Driver Survey on Sleep Apnea Issues (
FMCSA and FRA believe that other potential commenters to this rulemaking will benefit from an extension as well. Accordingly, FMCSA and FRA extend the comment period for all comments on the ANPRM and its related documents to July 8, 2016.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 8, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of mangoes from India, contact Dr. Nicole Russo, Assistant Director, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2159. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
Under § 319.56-46 of the regulations, APHIS allows the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions involve the use of information collection activities, one of which is a phytosanitary certificate. As a condition of entry, the mangoes must undergo irradiation treatment and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration statements providing specific information regarding the treatment and inspection of the mangoes and the orchards in which they are grown. The additional information collection activities include a preclearance workplan, trust fund agreement, compliance agreement, monitoring of inspections, and recordkeeping.
Since the last approval of this collection by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), we have added activities that were previously not accounted for, such as an orchard inspection agreement between APHIS and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India, package labeling identifying the treatment facility and date of treatment, treatment certification, and denial/withdrawal of facility certification. We have also revised the estimates of burden associated with this information collection.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice.
This NOFA announces the availability of cost-share funds to certain cotton producers of the United States, specifically for the 2015 cotton crop. Eligible CGCS participants will receive a one-time payment, calculated based on a cost-share not to exceed 40 percent of calculated ginning costs by region, the number of cotton acres that were planted, including failed acreage, for the 2015 crop year, and the percentage of share the participant had in the cotton. Similar to other Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs, certain eligibility requirements apply, such as a $40,000 per individual or entity payment limit and a requirement that each participant's 3-year average adjusted gross income (AGI) be $900,000 or less. CGCS Program payments will be made to help the domestic cotton industry find new and improved ways to market cotton.
Application period: June 20, 2016 through August 5, 2016.
Kelly Hereth, (202) 720-0448.
U.S. upland and extra-long staple (ELS) cotton producers are required to gin and bale cotton before either of the components of cotton (lint or seed) can be marketed, as there is no commerce in un-ginned bales. Approximately 13 million bales were ginned for the 2015 cotton crop year. There exists, however, 2014 cotton production carryover (ginned cotton inventory that has not yet been sold), as well as the 2015 cotton crop production some which has not been marketed. While the payments are based on ginning costs, the intended effect of the CGCS Program is to aid the broader marketing chain associated with cotton. For example, there is a direct cost to cotton producers associated with ginning for improved bale packing and storage to meet the ever increasing quality demands of the fiber industry, and there is a large domestic market for the cotton seed extracted during the ginning process.
The state of the market has limited the ability of cotton producers to expand domestic markets, develop new and additional markets, maintain existing markets that would have otherwise shrunk and marketing facilities, and increase the uses for cotton. The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(e)) includes authority for CCC to use its general powers to increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.
The ginning of cotton is necessary prior to marketing the lint for fiber or the seed for oil or feed; therefore CCC is using its general authority to aid in the expansion and maintenance of domestic markets for cotton. Increased domestic consumption and uses for cotton as a result of the CGCS Program payments to cotton producers, based on cotton ginning costs, will aid more than just the farmers; as the cotton gins, cooperatives, marketers, cottonseed crushers, and other marketing facilities will indirectly benefit also.
CGCS is being done as a NOFA, as opposed to a regulation, because it is a one-time payment to aid expansion and creation of new markets for cotton. Also, CGCS is based upon 2015 cotton crop acres which are already known to FSA through previously submitted acreage reports. Accordingly, there is no benefit for public comment on CGCS.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will administer the CGCS Program on behalf of CCC, using CCC funds.
CGCS is a one-time payment to cotton producers. CGCS will be available to producers of upland and extra-long staple (ELS) cotton. CGCS payments will be available to those cotton producers who had a share in the 2015 cotton acres that were planted, including failed cotton acreage, and reported to FSA, including landowners who had a share interest and risk in the cotton crop and incurred ginning costs for the 2015 cotton crop.
FSA will make approximately $300 million in CGCS payments to cotton producers. The maximum aggregate payment amount a person or legal entity is eligible for under CGCS is $40,000. The funds announced in this NOFA are not subject to sequestration.
Most 2015 cotton crop producers have already submitted the required form FSA-578, “Report of Acreage”, to FSA, as part of their participation in various FSA and CCC programs. The regulation in 7 CFR part 718 requires producers to report for various commodities, including the number of cotton acres that were planted, including failed acres, in the United States for their 2015 cotton crop and their percentage share of the reported 2015 cotton crop acreage. Accordingly, FSA has already acquired this information as previously reported to FSA on a FSA-578 or a crop acreage report to their crop insurance agent (both reports are referred to in this NOFA as the acreage report). If there were any errors in the previously submitted acreage report, the producer may go through the established FSA process to correct the reported information. Any such requests for correction are subject to review and require approval by FSA through the established process before they are accepted. Because FSA already possesses 2015 cotton acreage report data, we know who is potentially eligible to apply for the CGCS Program and will mail the application to such applicants. Applicants may also apply through an FSA county office.
CGCS payments are limited to $40,000 per person or legal entity.
A person or legal entity is ineligible for payments if the person's or legal entity's AGI for the applicable compliance program year is more than $900,000. If a person with an indirect interest in a legal entity has AGI of more than $900,000, the CGCS payments subject to AGI compliance provisions to the legal entity will be reduced as calculated based on the percent interest of the person in the legal entity receiving the payment. The relevant years used to calculate AGI for CGCS are the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years. As with other FSA and CCC programs, AGI will be calculated based on the average income for the 3 taxable years preceding the most immediately preceding complete taxable year for which benefits are requested.
In addition to having a share in cotton planted in 2015, to be eligible for a CGCS Program payment, each applicant is required to be a person or legal entity
Foreign persons are not eligible for payments. Federal, State, and local governments are not eligible for CGCS payments.
Appeal regulations specified in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 apply. FSA program requirements and determinations that are not in response to, or result from, an individual disputable set of facts in an individual participant's application for assistance are not matters that can be appealed.
Payment eligibility, payment limits, and AGI limits are the same for CGCS Program payments as they have been for other FSA and CCC programs, for example the Cotton Transition Assistance Program (see 7 CFR parts 1400 and 1412).
The CGCS payment will be calculated as follows:
Acres are the number of 2015 cotton crop acres (both upland and ELS) in which the applicant had an interest, as reported on their acreage report as planted (including failed acres, but not prevented planted acres).
Share is the producer's or landowner's share of such acres.
As shown in Table 1, the CGCS payment rate is 40 percent times the ginning cost. The ginning cost is the calculated average cost of ginning per acre in the production region. The applicable production region is the State in which the 2015 cotton crop (upland and ELS cotton) was planted (not where the farm operation is located).
There are four production regions, consistent with the U.S. cotton industry's longstanding designation. The per-acre regional rates are defined in Table 1. Cotton acreage planted in 2015 in any state not listed in Table 1, will receive the regional rate based on where the 2015 cotton acres are located, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.
To develop the costs in Table 1, FSA used the USDA Economic Research Service's calculation of cotton ginning costs, which is based on the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). The data is based on a large survey of cotton producers in 2007 and was updated through 2014 using several indices that reflect annual changes in ginning costs. The per planted acre ginning costs were converted to regional averages weighted by each State's share of regional plantings during the most recent 5 years. In the ARMS data, no distinction is made between ginning costs for upland and ELS cotton, so the same rate will be applied to both varieties of cotton.
For example, an applicant has 1,000 acres of upland cotton located in Texas and 500 acres of ELS cotton in New Mexico, and the applicant has 100 percent interest in all of the cotton reported for 2015 for the farm. Even though the farm operation is located in Texas, the applicable CGCS payment rate is based on where the cotton is planted. Therefore, for the acres located in Texas the CGCS payment rate is $36.97, and for the cotton acreage located in New Mexico, the CGCS payment rate is $97.41 (as shown in Table 1). Therefore, the result of the CGCS calculation would be $85,675 ((1,000 cotton acres in Texas × $36.97 per acre × 100 percent share) + (500 acres in New Mexico × $97.41 × 100 percent share)), but the CGCS payment to this applicant would be reduced to $40,000 because the CGCS payment limit is $40,000 per person or legal entity.
To apply for the CGCS Program, each applicant must submit a complete and valid CGCS application (CCC-882 form) to their recording FSA county office either in person, by mail, or by electronic means, including email and facsimile. The application period is from June 20, 2016, through August 5, 2016. CGCS applications must be received by FSA by August 5, 2016. Applicants may revise their application and re-submit it to FSA during the application period; the revised CGCS application must be received by FSA by August 5, 2016. Any application received by FSA after August 5, 2016, will not be considered and will be ineligible for any CGCS payment. The application must include, but is not limited to, the number of 2015 planted acres of cotton (upland and ELS cotton) on the farm, the farm serial number, and tract number of the farm where the cotton acreage was reported. The applicant will be required to submit evidence upon request, such as seed receipts, custom harvesting receipts, or bale gin lists, to substantiate either the claimed share interest in the cotton or the number of cotton acres reported for the 2015 crop year.
In order to be eligible for CGCS, applicants are required to have reported their 2015 crop year planted cotton, including failed acreage, to FSA using the FSA-578 acreage report. Only the number of cotton acres reported on the FSA-578 acreage report, and the producer's share in the planted, including failed, cotton acreage for the 2015 crop year will be eligible for consideration for a CGCS payment. In the event that there are determined acres of planted, including failed, cotton (upland and ELS cotton) crop acreage for 2015, as verified by FSA in carrying out acreage reporting compliance activities, then determined acres will be used in place of the reported acres. (Standard FSA acreage report compliance activities include verifying the number of reported acres; the results are referred to as “determined acres.”)
The applicant's share interest in cotton acres on a CGCS application cannot be greater than the share interest in cotton acres as reported on the
If an eligible applicant has sold or leased a farm that produced cotton in 2015, the applicant may assign the CGCS payment by completing form CCC-36. However, under no circumstances will CCC pay both the 2015 producer and the 2016 producer of such cotton.
As noted above, if there are any corrections required for acreage reports, they may be made, however corrections related to upland or ELS cotton acres or shares must be received by FSA by August 5, 2016, the CGCS Program application deadline in order to be used to calculate the CGCS payment. Any correction to 2015 cotton crop acres made to the acreage report after August 5, 2016, is not eligible to be considered for CGCS.
FSA will review each CCC-882 application to determine eligibility by verifying that the application is complete and the number of cotton acres the applicant certified on the application for the 2015 crop year is the same as reported on the FSA-578 acreage report.
When there are multiple eligible applicants for a farm, FSA will approve an application for the CGCS Program and approve the division of payment when all the following, as applicable, occur or have been determined to have occurred:
(1) Each landlord, tenant, and sharecropper that apply sign their own CGCS Program application, and their combined payment shares recorded on the application when added together cannot exceed 100 percent of the shares recorded on the acreage report for the 2015 cotton crop for the farm, and neither the landlord, tenant, nor sharecropper can receive 100 percent of CGCS payment for the farm;
(2) CCC determines that the interests of tenants and sharecroppers are being protected by confirming the shares are consistent with the acreage report;
(3) The applicant, upon the FSA county office committee's request, if necessary, will provide a copy of the lease agreement; and
(4) CCC determines that the payment shares do not circumvent either the provisions of this NOFA or the provisions of 7 CFR part 1400.
The result of an approved application will be a one-time payment, consistent with the terms specified in this NOFA and the payment application. All applications are subject to the approval by FSA on behalf of CCC, and FSA will not approve ineligible applications.
In the event that any application for a CGCS payment resulted from erroneous information or a miscalculation, the payment will be recalculated and the participant must refund any excess to FSA with interest to be calculated from the date of the disbursement to the participant. If for whatever reason FSA determines that the applicant misrepresented either the acreage or share of cotton acreage or both, or if the CGCS payment would exceed the participant's payment based upon correct acreage and share, the application will be disapproved and the full CGCS payment for that crop and participant will be required to be refunded to FSA with interest from date of disbursement. If any corrections to the 2015 cotton crop acres or shares are made to the acreage report after August 5, 2016, and would have resulted in a lower CGCS payment, the applicant will be required to refund the difference with interest from date of disbursement.
The liability of anyone for any penalty or sanction resulting from a CGCS application, or for any refund to FSA or related charge is in addition to any other liability of such person under any civil or criminal fraud statute or any other provision of law including, but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, 641, 651, 1001, and 1014; 15 U.S.C. 714; and 31 U.S.C. 3729.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OMB approved an emergency information collection request on CGCS so FSA can begin the application period upon publication of this NOFA.
Because this is a one-time payment, there are no impacts to the human environment as defined by NEPA and, as such, no Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 8, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes and Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Bend, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held June 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council's Office, 334 Northeast Hawthorne Avenue, Bend, Oregon.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Sean Ferrell, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-383-5576 or via email at
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. Discuss the goals and objectives of the RAC;
2. Review projects proposals; and
3. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 13, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Sean Ferrell, RAC Coordinator, Deschutes National Forest Supervisor's Office, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701; by email to
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the
Comments on this notice must be received by August 8, 2016.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, FAX: (202) 720-4120. Email:
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for revision.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms and information technology. Comments may be sent to Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078, FAX: (202) 690-4492. Email:
Under the SEARCH program, the Secretary may make predevelopment and planning grants to public or quasi-public agencies, organizations operated on a not-for-profit basis or Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations and other federally recognized Indian tribes. The grant recipients shall use the grant funds for feasibility studies, design assistance, and development of an application for financial assistance to financially distressed communities in rural areas with populations of 2,500 or fewer inhabitants for water and waste disposal projects as authorized in sections 306(a)(1), 306(a)(2) and 306(a)(24) of the CONACT.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-7853, FAX: (202) 720-4120. Email:
All responses to this information collection and recordkeeping notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Solicitation of applications.
Because the terms of the members of the North Carolina Advisory Committee are expiring on July 24, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the North Carolina Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of North Carolina to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Southern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than June 24, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the Missouri Advisory Committee are expiring on July 24, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Missouri Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Missouri to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Central Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than June 24, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the Arizona Advisory Committee are expiring on July 24, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Arizona Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of the Arizona to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Western Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than June 24, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee are expiring on August 14, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Oklahoma Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of the Oklahoma to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Central Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than July 14, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Letters of interest for membership on the North Carolina Advisory Committee should be received no later than June 24, 2016.
Letters of interest for membership on the Missouri Advisory Committee should be received no later than June 24, 2016.
Letters of interest for membership on the Arizona Advisory Committee should be received no later than June 24, 2016.
Letters of interest for membership on the Oklahoma Advisory Committee should be received no later than July 14, 2016.
Send letters of interest for the North Carolina Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Southern Regional Office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Suite 1840T, Atlanta, GA 30303. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the Missouri Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Central Regional Office, 400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Missouri City, KS 66101. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the Arizona Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the Oklahoma Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Letter can also be sent via email to
David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 353-8311. Questions can also be directed via email to
The North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, and Oklahoma Advisory Committees are statutorily mandated federal advisory committees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975a. Under the charter for the advisory committees, the purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) on a broad range of civil rights matters in its respective state that pertain to alleged deprivations of voting rights or discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or the administration of justice. Advisory committees also provide assistance to the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for civil rights information.
Each advisory committee consists of not more than 19 members, each of whom will serve a four-year term. Members serve as unpaid Special Government Employees who are reimbursed for travel and expenses. To be eligible to be on an advisory committee, applicants must be residents of the respective state or district, and have demonstrated expertise or interest in civil rights issues.
The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957 to focus on matters of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Its mandate is to:
• Investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights are being deprived,
• study and collect information about discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law,
• appraise federal civil rights laws and policies,
• serve as a national clearinghouse on discrimination laws,
• submit reports and findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress, and
• issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination.
The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed a member of the North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, or Oklahoma Advisory Committee covered by this notice to send a letter of interest and a resume to the respective address above.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 a.m. (MDT) on Friday, June 24, 2016, at the Main Library, 501 Copper Avenue NW., Albuquerque, NM 87102. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to explore the topic of Elder Abuse. The Briefing topics will include elder care services, non or limited access to care that may be impacted by finances, legal services, and structure of services. The New Mexico Advisory Committee will hear from individuals, advocacy groups, community organizations, and representatives of local, state, and Federal agencies. A planning meeting will convene at 6:00 p.m. (MDT) on Thursday, June 23, 2016, at a location that is TBD. The purpose of the planning meeting is for the committee to review the agenda and procedures of the next day briefing meeting. .
If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at
Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, July 24. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Friday, June 24, 2016 (MDT).
Main Library, 501 Copper Avenue NW., Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Malee Craft at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing approval of a report to the Commission regarding civil rights and police/community interactions in Missouri.
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-539-3612, conference ID: 2570459. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public may comment in advance of the meeting, or at the designated public comment period during the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. CDT.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Pakistan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective: June 8, 2016.
David Lindgren, 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) 482-3870.
The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is circular welded pipe from Pakistan. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin to the sole mandatory respondent International Industries Limited (IIL). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Pakistan, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs may be submitted no later than 30 days from the publication of this preliminary determination in the
The Department also invites parties to comment on the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. Written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted no later than 30 days from the publication of this preliminary determination and should be submitted separately from the briefs. Scope-related comments must be filed on the record of this investigation, as well as the companion antidumping duty investigations of circular welded pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the countervailing duty investigation of circular welded pipe from Pakistan.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of the preliminary determination in the
Parties must file their case briefs and rebuttal briefs, as well as any requests for a hearing, electronically, using ACCESS.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
IIL, the mandatory respondent, requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, (3) the requesting exporter has requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months, and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether or not imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry within 120 days of publication of this preliminary determination or 45 days of publication of our final determination, whichever is later.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
(a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (
Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
The scope of this investigation does not include:
(a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;
(b) finished electrical conduit,
(c) finished scaffolding,
(d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;
(e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;
(f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 2, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated the fourth five-year (“sunset”) review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware (“POS cookware”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).
Andrew Devine, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238.
On February 2, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset review of the
The subject merchandise is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) subheading 7323.94.00.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS cookware from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins up to 66.65 percent.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary
This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective June 8, 2016.
Katherine Johnson or Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.
The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is CWP from Oman. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act and normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, we preliminarily calculated an above
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Oman, as described in Appendix I of this notice, for all companies, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. Scope-related briefs/comments must be filed on the record of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty CWP investigations. Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to non-scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
Al Jazeera requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (
In accordance with sections 735(a)(2)(A) and 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3) the requesting exporter has requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months; and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
(a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (
Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
The scope of this investigation does not include:
(a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;
(b) finished electrical conduit,
(c) finished scaffolding,
(d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;
(e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;
(f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
1. Summary
2. Background
3. Period of Investigation
4. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures
5. Scope Comments
6. Discussion of the Methodology
a. Determination of the Comparison Method
b. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis
7. Date of Sale
8. Product Comparisons
9. Export Price
10. Normal Value
a. Home Market Viability
b. Level of Trade
c. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
1. Calculation of COP
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
3. Results of the COP Test
d. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices
11. Currency Conversion
12. Conclusion
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 11, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the
Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
On March 11, 2016, the Department published the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C
As a result of our review, we determine that the following dumping margin on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC exists for Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd., determined to be a part of the PRC-wide entity,
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to apply an
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd., as part of the PRC-wide entity, will be the PRC-wide rate of 45.27 percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 45.27 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement off antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Shanah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6386, respectively.
On February 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the AD
On March 3, 2016, the Department received a complete substantive response to the
The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-backed scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the PRC would likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 141.49 percent.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 10, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the
Effective May 20, 2016.
Bryan Hansen 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) 482-3683 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
On September 24, 2015, the CIT issued the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation pending the expiration of the period of appeal or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
Since the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (“IMTDC”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective June 8, 2016.
Krisha Hill or Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-3518, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on November 25, 2015.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the partial closure of the Federal Government due from Snowstorm “Jonas” from January 22, through January 27, 2016. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is iron mechanical transfer drive components. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
On March 30, 2016, Petitioner filed an amendment to the scope of the investigation to exclude certain finished torsional vibration dampers (“TVD”).
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Further, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference in determining the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity and normal value, in part, for Powermach. For a full discussion of the Department's methodology,
The Department received separate rate applications from nine companies, in addition to the two mandatory respondents. The Department has preliminarily granted separate-rate status to all of the companies which provided separate rates information, except NVCC, which withdrew from participation as a mandatory respondent in this investigation, Baldor Electric Canada (“Baldor”), and Yueqing Bethel Shaft Collar Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Yueqing Bethel”), which did not respond to the Department's request for supplemental information. The Department has treated these three companies as part of the PRC-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of IMTDC from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
In LTFV investigations with a companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, we normally adjust antidumping duty cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion CVD investigation, we preliminarily found that Powermach did not receive export subsidies. The rate for all-others companies in the CVD case was based on Powermach's rate, and thus the all-others companies did not receive an export subsidy rate. Therefore, no offset to Powermach's or the separate rate entities' cash deposit rates for export subsidies is necessary. Additionally, we likewise are not adjusting the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity for export subsidies.
Pursuant to 777A(f) of the Act, we are not adjusting preliminary cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through. Based on the data on the record of this investigation, the Department does not find a general decrease in the U.S. average import price during the relevant period. Thus, the Department preliminarily finds that the requirement under section 777A(f)(1)(B) of the Act has not been met, and the Department did not make an adjustment under Section 777A(f) of the Act.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On May 5, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Powermach requested that the Department postpone its final determination, and requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this investigation is
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (
Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to this investigation are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.
Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (
Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.
Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of width, design, or iron type (
For purposes of this investigation, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.
Excluded from the scope are finished torsional vibration dampers (TVDs). A finished TVD is an engine component composed of three separate components: an inner ring, a rubber ring and an outer ring. The inner ring is an iron wheel or cylinder with a bore hole to fit a crank shaft which forms a seal to prevent leakage of oil from the engine. The rubber ring is a dampening medium between the inner and outer rings that effectively reduces the torsional vibration. The outer ring, which may be made of materials other than iron, may or may not have grooves in its outer circumference. To constitute a finished excluded TVD, the product must be composed of each of the three parts identified above and the three parts must be permanently affixed to one another such that both the inner ring and the outer ring are permanently affixed to the rubber ring. A finished TVD is excluded only if it meets the physical description provided above; merchandise that otherwise meets the description of the scope and does not satisfy the physical description of excluded finished TVDs above is still covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of end use or identification as a TVD.
The scope also excludes light-duty, fixed-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves (“excludable LDFPN sheaves”) with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than two grooves; having a maximum face width of no more than 1.75 inches, where the face width is the width of the part at its outside diameter; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 18.75 inches; and having no teeth on the outside or datum diameter. Excludable LDFPN sheaves must also either have a maximum straight bore size of 1.6875 inches with a maximum hub diameter of 2.875 inches; or else have a tapered bore measuring 1.625 inches at the large end, a maximum hub diameter of 3.50 inches, a length through tapered bore of 1.0 inches, exactly two tapped holes that are 180 degrees apart, and a 2.0-inch bolt circle on the face of the hub. Excludable LDFPN sheaves more than 6.75 inches in outside diameter must also have an arm or spoke construction.
In addition to the above characteristics, excludable LDFPN sheaves must also have a maximum weight (pounds-per-piece) as follows: For excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 4.7 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 15.0 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 13.3 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 17.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 16.5 pounds; and for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 26.5 pounds.
The scope also excludes light-duty, variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than 2 grooves; having a maximum overall width of less than 2.25 inches with a single groove, or of 3.25 inches or less with two grooves; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 7.5 inches; having a maximum bore size of 1.625 inches; having either one or two identical, internally-threaded (
The scope also excludes certain IMTDC bushings. An IMTDC bushing is excluded only if it has a tapered angle of greater than or equal to 10 degrees, where the angle is measured between one outside tapered surface and the directly opposing outside tapered surface.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective June 8, 2016.
Whitley Herndon or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6274 or (202) 482-5973, respectively.
The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is CWP from the UAE.
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price and, where appropriate, constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act and normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, we based our calculation of the all-others rate on the weighted-average of the margins calculated for Ajmal and Universal using publicly ranged data. We cannot calculate a weighted-average margin based on the actual data reported by the respondents because doing so may potentially reveal their business proprietary information. Accordingly, we find this rate, which is based on publicly ranged data that respondents reported to be the best proxy of the weighted-average margin based on these respondents' actual data. For further discussion of this calculation,
The Department
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the UAE, as described in Appendix I of this notice, for all companies, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. Scope-related briefs/comments must be filed on the record of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty CWP investigations. Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to non-scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
Ajmal and Universal, the respondents, requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (
In accordance with sections 735(a)(2)(A) and 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3) the requesting exporters have requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months; and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
(a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (
Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
The scope of this investigation does not include:
(a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining
(b) finished electrical conduit,
(c) finished scaffolding,
(d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;
(e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;
(f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective June 8, 2016.
Nancy Decker or Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.
The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is CWP from Vietnam. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
In the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWP from Vietnam, as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify the information relied upon prior to making our final determination.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to scope issue raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for scope case briefs. Scope-related briefs/comments must be filed on the record of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty CWP investigations.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to non-scope issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19
Respondents Hongyuan and SeAH, both requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3) the requesting exporters have requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months; and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
(a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (
Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
The scope of this investigation does not include:
(a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;
(b) finished electrical conduit,
(c) finished scaffolding,
(d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;
(e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;
(f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (“iron transfer drive components”) from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The period of investigation is October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. The estimated dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective June 8, 2016.
Stephen Bailey or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193 or (202) 482-3434, respectively.
On October 28, 2015, the Department received an antidumping duty (“AD”) petition concerning imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada, filed in proper form on behalf of TB Wood's Incorporated (“TB Woods”) (“Petitioner”).
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum that is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the partial closure of the Federal Government due from Snowstorm “Jonas” from January 22, through January 27, 2016. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is iron mechanical transfer drive components. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II to this notice.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
On March 30, 2016, Petitioner filed an amendment to the scope of the investigation to exclude certain finished torsional vibration dampers (“TVD”).
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The sole selected mandatory respondent, Baldor Electric Company Canada (“Baldor”), failed to participate in this investigation and to respond to the Department's Sections A, B, C, and D supplemental questionnaires.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
We determined the dumping margin for mandatory respondent Baldor under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, the only available dumping margins for this preliminary determination are found in the petition and are margins upon which we initiated. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department's practice under these circumstances has been to calculate the “all-others” rate as a simple average of these margins from the petition.
The preliminary dumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of iron transfer drive components from Canada as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. An electronically-filed request for a hearing must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Because Baldor failed to provide information requested by the Department and the Department preliminarily determines Baldor to have been uncooperative, verification will not be conducted.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On May 16, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Baldor requested that the Department postpone its final determination, and requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (
Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to this investigation are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.
Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (
Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.
Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of width, design, or iron type (
For purposes of this investigation, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.
Excluded from the scope are finished torsional vibration dampers (TVDs). A finished TVD is an engine component composed of three separate components: An inner ring, a rubber ring and an outer ring. The inner ring is an iron wheel or cylinder with a bore hole to fit a crank shaft which forms a seal to prevent leakage of oil from the engine. The rubber ring is a dampening medium between the inner and outer rings that effectively reduces the torsional vibration. The outer ring, which may be made of materials other than iron, may or may not have grooves in its outer circumference. To constitute a finished excluded TVD, the product must be composed of each of the three parts identified above and the three parts must be permanently affixed to one another such that both the inner ring and the outer ring are permanently affixed to the rubber ring. A finished TVD is excluded only if it meets the physical description provided above; merchandise that otherwise meets the description of the scope and does not satisfy the physical description of excluded finished TVDs above is still covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of end use or identification as a TVD.
The scope also excludes light-duty, fixed-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves (“excludable LDFPN sheaves”) with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than two grooves; having a maximum face width of no more than 1.75 inches, where the face width is the width of the part at its outside diameter; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 18.75 inches; and having no teeth on the outside or datum diameter. Excludable LDFPN sheaves must also either have a maximum straight bore size of 1.6875 inches with a maximum hub diameter of 2.875 inches; or else have a tapered bore measuring 1.625 inches at the large end, a maximum hub diameter of 3.50 inches, a length through tapered bore of 1.0 inches, exactly two tapped holes that are 180 degrees apart, and a 2.0- inch bolt circle on the face of the hub. Excludable LDFPN sheaves more than 6.75 inches in outside diameter must also have an arm or spoke construction.
In addition to the above characteristics, excludable LDFPN sheaves must also have a maximum weight (pounds-per-piece) as follows: For excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 4.7 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 15.0 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 13.3 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 17.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 16.5 pounds; and for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 26.5 pounds.
The scope also excludes light-duty, variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than 2 grooves; having a maximum overall width of less than 2.25 inches with a single groove, or of 3.25 inches or less with two grooves; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 7.5 inches; having a maximum bore size of 1.625 inches; having either one or two identical, internally-threaded
The scope also excludes certain IMTDC bushings. An IMTDC bushing is excluded only if it has a tapered angle of greater than or equal to 10 degrees, where the angle is measured between one outside tapered surface and the directly opposing outside tapered surface.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 5, 2016 the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Thailand.
Effective June 8, 2016.
Andre Gziryan, 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) 482-2201.
On April 5, 2016, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to this order is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments,
As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The Department made no changes to the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to apply an
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for K. International Packaging will be 122.88 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 4.69 percent.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Availability, Request for Comments; Webinar.
The National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes this notice on behalf of the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology's Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG-OCM) to announce a 60-day public comment period on the draft National Coastal Mapping Strategy (NCMS), Version 1.0.
Through this public comment period and corresponding webinar, the IWG-OCM seeks to solicit input on the draft NCMS.
See
See
Sasha Pryborowski, (
The IWG-OCM, of which NOAA is a member agency, was formed in 2006 to provide federal interagency coordination on ocean and coastal mapping. In accordance with the 2009 Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act (OCMIA), the IWG-OCM is enhancing its coordination of ocean and coastal mapping to more effectively and efficiently provide stakeholders and the public with comprehensive geospatial information.
This first version of the NCMS is intended to address interagency data acquisition and coordination mandates in the OCMIA, and the National Ocean Policy. It is focused on coastal topographic-bathymetric lidar elevation data collection; subsequent versions will focus on other types of data collection (
Informed choices in the coastal zone, whether for the safety of coastal residents, environmental protection, security or economic decisions, require accurate and up-to-date U.S. coastal elevation data. The acquisition of this mapping data—in particular high-accuracy, high-resolution topographic and bathymetric lidar—must be comprehensive, coordinated, cost-effective, and recurring. Such a strategic approach to land-water lidar mapping at the coasts would bring the United States much closer to becoming a 3D Nation—a nation that translates robust mapping coordination into a seamless, modern elevation foundation for stronger, more resilient communities and a more competitive U.S. economy.
The IWG-OCM, tasked by Congress to develop a coastal mapping plan in the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2009, has produced this first iteration of a NCMS to focus on that portion of the U.S. coastal zone that can be successfully mapped by a mix of lidar techniques for accurate elevation data. Recognizing the ongoing progress on lidar mapping coordination in the coastal zone, the IWG-OCM decided to capitalize on this existing momentum, and focus this first version of the NCMS on topographic and bathymetric lidar mapping of the U.S. coasts, Great Lakes, territories and possessions. Future iterations will include ocean mapping in the offshore and Outer Continental Shelf regions using technologies such as acoustic, aerial photography, hyperspectral and satellite imagery, to continue to build out the U.S. elevation dataset and meet other mapping needs (
• Component 1 describes the organization of IWG-OCM Coastal Mapping Summits linked to web-based reporting in order to enhance existing and ongoing coordination on coastal lidar acquisition.
• Component 2 details definitions for bathymetric lidar Quality Levels that will foster the collection of interoperable datasets by all IWG-OCM member agencies involved in lidar collection.
• The focus of Component 3 is to improve interagency coordination on data management tasks (validation, processing, stewardship, dissemination and archiving) in order to reduce costs, maximize efficiency, and avoid duplication of effort.
• Lastly, Component 4 lays out an approach for cooperation on targeted methods, research, and technique development. New tools and improved technologies developed through this structure will facilitate interagency collaboration in obtaining the maximum value from shared coastal mapping data.
The draft NCMS Version 1.0 can be found at:
Stakeholders and the public are encouraged to submit comments and questions on the NCMS. Electronic comments and questions on the NCMS may be submitted via email to
A webinar has also been scheduled to answer questions that stakeholders or the public may have on the NCMS and to gather input on how to improve the draft, such as by identifying missing elements or incorporating other perspectives. All interested parties are encouraged to participate. Comments and questions are welcomed both ahead of, and after, the webinar using the mechanisms identified above.
Note that the web conference is limited to 200 participants and will therefore be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The agenda for the webinar will include time for questions and answers, and comments. The agenda will be posted to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Margo Schulze-Haugen, (301) 427-8503 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
VMS and electronic monitoring systems collect important information on fishing effort, catch, and the geographic location of fishing effort and catch for certain sectors of the Atlantic HMS fleet. Data collected through these programs are used in both domestic and international fisheries management, including for law enforcement, stock assessments, and quota management purposes. Atlantic HMS vessels required to use VMS are pelagic longline, purse seine, bottom longline (directed shark permit holders in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia), and gillnet (directed shark permit holders consistent with the requirements of the Atlantic large whale take reduction plan requirements at 50 CFR 229.39.(h)) vessels. In addition to VMS, pelagic longline vessels are also required to have electronic monitoring systems to monitor catch and account for bluefin tuna harvest and discards.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) monitors fleet adherence to gear- and time-area restrictions with VMS position location data. Gear restricted areas and time-area closures are important tools for Atlantic HMS management that have been implemented to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish, sea turtles, and bluefin tuna, among other species. Electronic monitoring data from the pelagic longline fleet includes bluefin tuna discard and harvest information. These data are used by NMFS to accurately monitor bluefin tuna catch by the pelagic longline fleet, to ensure compliance with Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) limits and requirements, and to ensure that the Longline category bluefin tuna quota is not over-harvested. VMS reporting of bluefin tuna catch is used to monitor the status of IBQ allocations in real-time.
Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Atlantic Tunas Conservation Act (ATCA). Under the MSA, management measures must be consistent with ten National Standards, and fisheries must be managed to maintain optimum yield, rebuild overfished fisheries, and prevent overfishing. Under ATCA, the Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate regulations, as necessary and appropriate, to implement measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
First-time VMS respondents must install a VMS unit and submit an activation checklist to NMFS via mail. Hail-out, hail-in, hourly position reports, and bluefin tuna catch reports must be submitted to NMFS via the VMS communication system. First-time electronic monitoring respondents must have an electronic monitoring system installed by a NMFS contractor. Electronic monitoring data must be submitted after each pelagic longline trip via mail.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
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 8, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 8, 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 Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 520, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3711, ATTN: Mr. James P. Holland, or call 703-697-2188, email:
Respondents are LRAs that have executed EDC agreements with a Military Department that transferred property from a closed military installation. As provided by 32 CFR 174.9, such agreements require that the LRA reinvest the proceeds from any sale, lease or equivalent use of EDC property (or any portion thereof) during at least the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of the property to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. The Secretary of Defense may recoup from the LRA such portion of these proceeds not used to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. LRAs are subject to this same seven-year reinvestment requirement if their EDC agreement is modified to reduce the debt owed to the Federal Government. Military Departments monitor LRA compliance with this provision by requiring an annual financial statement certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant. No specific form is required.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing.
Thursday, July 7, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, July 8, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The Academy Hotel, 8110 North Academy Boulevard, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920.
Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 102-3.150.
Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number in the
Offices of Elementary and Secondary Education and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Comprehensive Centers Program—National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities Notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
This priority is:
(a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based assessment tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the specific needs of such students;
(c) Provide families of such students with information to assist such students, and as part of this activity, the Center should plan to collaborate with the parent training and information and community parent resource centers funded by the Department of Education (the Department), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (
(d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel to—
(1) Understand early indicators of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(2) Use evidence-based screening assessments for early identification of such students beginning not later than kindergarten; and
(3) Implement evidence-based instruction designed to meet the specific needs of such students; and
(d) Disseminate the products of the comprehensive center to regionally diverse State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), regional educational agencies, and schools, including, as appropriate, through partnerships with other comprehensive centers established under section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), regional educational laboratories established under section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564), and OSEP- and other related federally-funded technical assistance centers.
(a) Demonstrate in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project” how the proposed project will address current and emerging training and information needs of SEAs, LEAs, technical assistance (TA) centers, schools, and practitioners to select and implement evidence-based practices that will improve literacy outcomes for students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(1) Demonstrate knowledge of current and emerging evidence-based practices in reading and literacy-related instruction, screening, assessment, and identification of students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills, including knowledge of culturally responsive evidence-based practices to respond to the needs of diverse learners with disabilities;
(2) Demonstrate knowledge of and previous experience with using creative approaches to disseminate evidence-based practices to a variety of entities, including parents, SEAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start, and other early childhood programs;
(3) Demonstrate knowledge of and previous experience with implementing TA strategies and delivering evidence-based professional development (PD) to a variety of entities, including SEAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start, and other early childhood programs; and
(4) Demonstrate how using these TA and PD strategies has resulted in SEAs, LEAs, schools, teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel adopting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based practices in reading and literacy-related instruction.
(b) Demonstrate in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Design,” how the Center will accomplish project goals and activities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(1) Describe a five-year plan for the Center to identify current and emerging training and information needs and to address the priority requirements;
(2) Use a conceptual framework for developing project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;
(3) Incorporate current research and evidence-based practices and strategies in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(4) Provide TA that is of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. The applicant must describe how it will use TA of varying levels of intensity, based on the needs of SEAs and other entities, to assess and build the capacity of SEAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, Head Start and other early childhood programs, and practitioners to—
(i) Assess students' literacy-related skills, including the capacity to: Identify students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills, administer assessments including screening tools, evaluate the evidence base for an assessment (
(ii) Fully implement evidence-based literacy-related programs. This involves helping practitioners understand the literacy program's purpose or goal, intended population, content, and necessary implementation supports, including PD needed to implement it with fidelity; and
(iii) Use evidence-based PD programs to improve practitioners' knowledge of reading and literacy-related instruction, ultimately leading to better literacy-related skills of students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills;
(5) Partner with other federally funded comprehensive centers, regional educational laboratories, equity assistance centers, TA centers, parent training and information and community parent resource centers, and other related organizations to refine or develop products, create training modules, and hold meetings to both encourage collaborative activities among SEAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start and other early childhood programs, practitioners, and parents, and maximize efficiency. These partnerships should include—
(i) Using technology, including assistive technology, to achieve intended project outcomes;
(ii) Collaborating with national experts, institutions of higher education, and TA providers to avoid duplicating efforts; and
(iii) Collaboratively identifying measures or guidelines for detecting if, due to a disability, students are at risk of not attaining full literacy skills, not learning to read, or not reaching benchmarks.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. The evaluation plan must—
(1) Describe performance goals, objectives, and outcomes for the project that are clearly specified and measurable in terms of the project activities to be accomplished and their stated outcomes;
(2) In accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of these Application Requirements, describe the logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes;
(3) Describe how both progress in implementation and project outcomes will be measured, including the extent to which the project's products and services will reach its target population, how intended outcomes or results are achieved, a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and data analytic strategies.
(4) Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggest analytic strategies for those data, provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include staff assignments for completing the plan;
(5) Describe how evaluations of performance will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the grant and to refine the proposed logic model and evaluation plan, including data collection; and
(6) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of these Application Requirements and implementing the evaluation plan.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and subject-matter and technical expertise to carry out the proposed activities, achieve the project's intended outcomes, and develop ongoing partnerships with leading experts and organizations nationwide to inform project activities;
(2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities;
(3) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits; and
(4) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as appropriate; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.
(2) Allocation of key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including families, general and special education teachers, related services providers, TA providers, researchers, institutions of higher education, policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.
(f) The applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.
OSEP uses this definition of logic model to differentiate between logic models and conceptual frameworks. The following Web sites provide more information on logic models:
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;
(3) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;
(4) Include in the budget 2-day trips twice per year to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by the Department; and
(5) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.283D.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities competition, CFDA number 84.283D, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. FAX: (202) 245-7619.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.283D), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.283D), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
All grantees will be expected to submit, as part of their performance reports, quantitative data documenting their progress with regard to these performance measures.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 8, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Deborah Spitz, 202-260-3793.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Information is collected under the authority of Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of P.L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division F of P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). (Attached is a copy of the authorizing statute.)
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on March 1, 2016, by Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG), up to the equivalent of 1,240 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/y) of natural gas. Plaquemines LNG requested authority to export this LNG to any country which has, or in future develops, the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carriers, with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U. S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).
Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, August 8, 2016.
Kyle W. Moorman or Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34) Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7970; (202) 586-9578.
Edward Myers, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76) Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3397.
The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. As part of this analysis, DOE will consider the following two studies examining the cumulative impacts of exporting domestically produced LNG:
•
•
Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:
•
•
Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested parties will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit their comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.
Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 22, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: