Page Range | 44489-44758 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 44584 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 44608 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
81 FR 44672 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 44659 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 44609 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 44683 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PINKY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 44644 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR) Data Access Request | |
81 FR 44610 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 44642 - Public Workshop-Iron Screening and Supplementation of Iron‐Replete Pregnant Women and Young Children | |
81 FR 44587 - Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2006-2007 | |
81 FR 44588 - Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China | |
81 FR 44607 - Innovative Solar 43, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 44665 - State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory Committee (SLTPS-PAC) | |
81 FR 44596 - Procurement List; Additions and Deletions | |
81 FR 44597 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
81 FR 44642 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request National Institutes of Health (NIH) Loan Repayment Programs; Office of the Director (OD) | |
81 FR 44661 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
81 FR 44600 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2017 National Supplement | |
81 FR 44601 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of the Title III Native American and Alaska Native Children in School (NAM) Program | |
81 FR 44610 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 44603 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP) Performance Reports | |
81 FR 44602 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Magnet Schools Assistance Program Application for Grants (1894-0001) | |
81 FR 44662 - Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Nominations for Vacancies | |
81 FR 44670 - Dedication of Commercial-Grade Items for Use in Nuclear Power Plants | |
81 FR 44592 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
81 FR 44591 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting (Webinar) | |
81 FR 44665 - Completion Date of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8; Tennessee Valley Authority; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 | |
81 FR 44654 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Cape Lookout National Seashore Cultural Resource Values and Vulnerabilities Assessment | |
81 FR 44652 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Commercial Use Authorizations | |
81 FR 44657 - Information Collection Activities: Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 44582 - Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage Borough Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 44673 - Environmental Impact Statement: King County, Washington | |
81 FR 44609 - Notice of Termination; 10293, Haven Trust Bank Florida, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida | |
81 FR 44614 - Use of Standards in the Food and Drug Administration's Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing-Based In Vitro Diagnostics Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases; Draft Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
81 FR 44611 - Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases To Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing-Based In Vitro Diagnostics; Draft Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
81 FR 44675 - Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection Request: 391.41 CMV Driver Medication Form | |
81 FR 44680 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
81 FR 44674 - Driver Qualifications: Skill Performance Evaluation; Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles; Exemption Renewal for Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles | |
81 FR 44685 - Application of LIMA NY Corp. for Commuter Air Carrier Authority | |
81 FR 44685 - Application of Tropic Ocean Airways, LLC for Commuter Authority | |
81 FR 44671 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 44673 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 44535 - Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments | |
81 FR 44600 - Intent To Prepare an Integrated Feasibility/Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Rota Harbor Modifications Project, Island of Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands | |
81 FR 44599 - Intent To Prepare an Integrated Feasibility/Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Tinian Harbor Modifications Project, Island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands | |
81 FR 44541 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Housatonic River, Stratford, CT | |
81 FR 44663 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Meeting. | |
81 FR 44664 - NASA Advisory Council; Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee; Meeting | |
81 FR 44662 - NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education Meeting | |
81 FR 44664 - NASA Advisory Council; Aeronautics Committee; Meeting | |
81 FR 44663 - NASA Advisory Council; Institutional Committee; Meeting | |
81 FR 44663 - NASA Advisory Council; Human Exploration and Operations Committee; Meeting | |
81 FR 44602 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; IES Research Training Program Surveys | |
81 FR 44583 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 44591 - International Whaling Commission; 66th Meeting; Nominations | |
81 FR 44629 - Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Zika Virus; Availability | |
81 FR 44616 - Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Ebola Zaire Virus; Availability | |
81 FR 44592 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 44665 - Committee Management; Renewals | |
81 FR 44593 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
81 FR 44584 - Privacy Act of 1974, System of Records | |
81 FR 44607 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Orion Project | |
81 FR 44606 - Black Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 44604 - Owyhee Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 44607 - FFP Missouri 12, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
81 FR 44604 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Markets and Operations Policy Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 44605 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
81 FR 44671 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 44580 - Notice of Request To Renew an Approved Information Collection (Accredited Laboratory Contact Update Form) | |
81 FR 44581 - Notice of Request To Renew an Approved Information Collection (Industry Responses to Noncompliance Records) | |
81 FR 44627 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Third-Party Review Under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act | |
81 FR 44686 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
81 FR 44687 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
81 FR 44686 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
81 FR 44685 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
81 FR 44628 - Regional Public Workshop on the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Q3D Implementation of Guideline for Elemental Impurities; Public Workshop | |
81 FR 44685 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
81 FR 44686 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
81 FR 44508 - Method of Accounting for Gains and Losses on Shares in Money Market Funds; Broker Returns With Respect to Sales of Shares in Money Market Funds | |
81 FR 44659 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year Review | |
81 FR 44643 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 44645 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 44645 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 44655 - Notice of September 19, 2016, Meeting for Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission | |
81 FR 44656 - Notice of an Open Public Meeting for the National Park Service Alaska Region Subsistence Resource Commission Program | |
81 FR 44639 - Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “Blockchain and Its Emerging Role in Healthcare and Health-related Research” | |
81 FR 44608 - Draft Guidance on Progress Tracking Metrics, Long-Term Strategies, Reasonable Progress Goals and Other Requirements for Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period | |
81 FR 44741 - Applications for New Awards; Promise Neighborhoods Program-Implementation Grant Competition | |
81 FR 44682 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System | |
81 FR 44583 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Testimony Regarding Civil Rights and Civil Asset Forfeiture in the State | |
81 FR 44711 - Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders | |
81 FR 44652 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bull Mountain Unit Master Development Plan, Gunnison County, CO | |
81 FR 44555 - North American Free Trade Agreement; Preference Override | |
81 FR 44515 - Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance Program | |
81 FR 44576 - Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders Reporting Requirements | |
81 FR 44640 - Request for Information: Opioid Analgesic Prescriber Education and Training Opportunities To Prevent Opioid Overdose and Opioid Use Disorder | |
81 FR 44683 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 44684 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 44689 - Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Reinsuring Companies | |
81 FR 44651 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
81 FR 44557 - Premium Tax Credit NPRM VI | |
81 FR 44499 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 44496 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 44503 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 44489 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 44656 - Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project | |
81 FR 44492 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
81 FR 44645 - Extension of the Designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status | |
81 FR 44542 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
81 FR 44494 - Airworthiness Directives; Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company) Airplanes |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Information Security Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Fiscal Service
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-18-12 for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. AD 2012-18-12 required modifying the off-wing escape slide (OWS) enclosures on the left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side of the fuselage. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2012-18-12 and expands the applicability to all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that additional OWS part numbers have been affected. We are issuing this AD to prevent off-wing exits on the LH and RH sides of the fuselage from becoming inoperative. During an emergency, inoperative off-wing exits could impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.
This AD becomes effective August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of October 22, 2012 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012).
For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
For Air Cruisers service information identified in this final rule, contact Air Cruisers Company, Cage Code 70167, 1747 State Route 34, Wall Township, NJ 07727-3935; telephone 732-681-3527; fax 732-681-9163; Internet
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012) (“AD 2012-18-12”). AD 2012-18-12 applied to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0025R1, dated May 26, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
One operator reported a torn out aspirator during scheduled deployment (for on ground testing purposes) of the Left Hand (LH) off-wing [escape] slide (OWS). Investigation results revealed that the aspirator of the OWS system interfered with the extrusion lip of the OWS enclosure during the initial stage of the deployment sequence.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an off-wing exit, either LH or Right Hand (RH), becoming unserviceable, which, during an emergency situation, could impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-25-1649 containing modification instructions for certain part number (P/N) OWS enclosures. Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2010-0210 [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, several other OWS P/N[s] have been identified as potentially impacted.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0210, which is superseded, expands the Applicability to all A318, A319 and A320 aeroplanes, and expands the batch of affected P/N[s] prohibited to be installed on an aeroplane.
For the reason described above, EASA issued AD 2014-0025, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0210, which was superseded, expanding the Applicability to all A318, A319 and A320 aeroplanes, and expanding the batch of affected P/N[s]
This [EASA] AD is revised to amend paragraphs (1) and (3) to restore the original applicability of [a Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France AD and EASA AD 2010-0210, respectively, and to correct paragraph (2) to give credit for certain production modifications that were equivalent for the in-service actions previously required by [a] DGAC France AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.
United Airlines (United) asked for clarification of the language in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, which would prohibit the installation of OWS part numbers (P/Ns) including D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, and D31865-210, as identified in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD, but also specifies accomplishing the modification required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. United stated that the modification converts those part numbers into D31865-309, D31865-311, D31865-310, and D31865-312, respectively. Therefore, United suggested we remove any language allowing installation of P/Ns D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, and D31865-210 from the proposed AD.
We agree that clarification is necessary. We have moved the language in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD into paragraph (h) of this AD and removed paragraph (h)(2) from this AD. We have also removed the language in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD which specified “except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD for the OWS enclosures identified in paragraph (h) of this AD.” And where paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD referred to “paragraph (h)(2),” we have changed this reference to paragraph (h) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 03, dated December 5, 2001. This service information describes procedures for modifying OWS enclosures having P/Ns D31865-101, D31865-102, D31865-103, D31865-104, D31865-105, D31865-106, D31865-107, or D31865-108 of certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1649, dated February 16, 2010. This service information describes procedures for modifying and installing OWS enclosures having P/Ns D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, or D31865-210, on the LH and RH sides of the fuselage on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes.
Air Cruisers has issued Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 4, dated November 9, 2012. This service information describes procedures for modifying the LH and RH OWS.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2012-18-12 and retained in this AD take about 14 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-18-12 is $1,190 per product.
We also estimate that it takes about 48 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,472,080, or $4,080 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective August 12, 2016.
This AD replaces (AD) 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012) (“AD 2012-18-12”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model 320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports that additional OWS part numbers have been affected. We are issuing this AD to prevent off-wing exits on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the fuselage from becoming inoperative. During an emergency, inoperative off-wing exits could impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-18-12, with no changes. For airplanes equipped with OWS enclosures having part number (P/N) D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, or D31865-210, except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Within 36 months after October 22, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-18-12), modify the OWS enclosures and install an OWS enclosure having P/N D31865-309, D31865-311, D31865-310, or D31865-312 on the LH side and RH side of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1649, dated February 16, 2010.
For airplanes equipped with an OWS enclosure having P/N D31865-101, D31865-102, D31865-103, D31865-104, D31865-105, D31865-106, D31865-107, or D31865-108, except as provided by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the OWS enclosures and their aspirators in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 03, dated December 5, 2001.
(1) Airplanes having Airbus Modification 30088 embodied in production using an OWS enclosure having P/N D31865-111 or D31865-112 are not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, unless a replacement OWS enclosure, having a part number listed in paragraphs (k)(9) through (k)(12) of this AD, has been installed on that airplane since first flight.
(2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 24850, 25844, and 27275 have been embodied in production, or on which modifications of the LH and RH OWS enclosures and their aspirators have been accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 01, dated February 2, 1999; or Revision 02, dated October 26, 1999; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1265, dated June 6, 2001, are compliant with the modification requirement of paragraph (h) of this AD.
Installing both LH and RH OWS that have been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 4, dated November 9, 2012, is an acceptable method of compliance with the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane an OWS enclosure having a part number listed in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(12) of this AD.
(1) D31865-101.
(2) D31865-102.
(3) D31865-103.
(4) D31865-104.
(5) D31865-105.
(6) D31865-106.
(7) D31865-107.
(8) D31865-108.
(9) D31865-109.
(10) D31865-110.
(11) D31865-209.
(12) D31865-210.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 01, dated February 2, 1999.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 02, dated October 26, 1999.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1265, dated June 6, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (l)(3)(i), (l)(3)(ii), (l)(3)(iii), or (l)(3)(iv) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(i) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, dated February 5, 2010.
(ii) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2010.
(iii) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 2, dated February 11, 2011.
(iv) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 3, dated October 28, 2011.
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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-18-12 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0025R1, dated May 26, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(5), (o)(6), and (o)(7) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 12, 2016.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 03, dated December 5, 2001.
(ii) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 4, dated November 9, 2012.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 22, 2012 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1649, dated February 16, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(6) For Air Cruisers service information identified in this AD, contact Air Cruisers Company, Cage Code 70167, 1747 State Route 34, Wall Township, NJ 07727-3935; telephone 732-681-3527; fax 732-681-9163; Internet
(7) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(8) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-13-05 for certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL (type certificate previously held by Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd.) airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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 some critical rivets on the wing not being fully age-hardened and being installed in specific locations where reduction in rivet strength reduces wing strength. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of July 31, 2006 (71 FR 35509, June 21, 2006).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email:
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL (type certificate previously held by Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd.) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Since we issued AD 2006-13-05, additional airplanes have been identified that need to be added to the applicability of the AD.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD No. DCA/750XL/7B, dated February 25, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
DCA/750XL/7B revised to introduce PACSB/XL/018 issue 4, dated 20 January 2016, which reduces the applicability to S/N 101 through to 131 with no change to the requirements. Aircraft with S/N 132 onwards have been modified in accordance with PACSB/XL/018 at manufacture, which is a terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 21489, April 12, 2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 21489, April 12, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 21489, April 12, 2016).
We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/018, Issue 4, dated January 20, 2016. The service bulletin describes procedures for removing rivets (part number (P/N) MS20470 DD6) and installing bolts (P/N NAS 6203-7X or NAS 6203-6X), washers (P/N AN960-10), and nuts (P/N MS21044N3) in place of the rivets to restore airplane to full take-off weight of 7,500 pounds. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 32 work-hours per product to comply with the replacement requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $519 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $29,151, or $3,239 per product.
AD 2006-13-05 affected 8 of the 9 U.S.-registered airplanes reflected in the above cost information. This AD will only increase the cost already required by AD 2006-13-05 by one additional airplane. The FAA has a report that the additional airplane is already in compliance, thus this AD will impose no additional cost impact on U.S. operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 12, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2006-13-05, Amendment 39-14658 (71 FR 35509, June 21, 2006) (“AD 2006-13-05”).
This AD applies to the following Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes (type certificate previously held by Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd.), that are certificated in any category.
(1)
(2)
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.
This 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 some critical rivets on the wing not being fully age-hardened and being installed in specific locations where reduction in rivet strength reduces wing strength. We are issuing this AD to add airplane serial numbers to the Applicability section, paragraph (c) of this AD, and to ensure wing ultimate load requirements are met. If wing ultimate load requirements are not met, wing failure could result with consequent loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Insert the following information into the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) at the compliance time specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD. You may do this by inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations section of the AFM: “The maximum takeoff weight is reduced from 7,500 pounds to 7,125 pounds.” The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do the flight manual changes requirement of this AD. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(i)
(ii)
(2) Remove rivets, part number (P/N) MS20470 DD6, on the main spar web and
(i)
(ii)
(3)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD No. DCA/750XL/7B, dated February 25, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 12, 2016.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/018, Issue 4, dated January 20, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 31, 2006 (71 FR 35509, June 21, 2006).
(i) Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/018, Issue 3, dated December 23, 2005, and amended January 16, 2006.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email:
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Beechcraft Corporation Model BAe.125 Series 1000A and 1000B airplanes and Model Hawker 1000 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of inadvertent stowage of the thrust reversers, which can result in high forward engine thrust even though the throttle is commanding reverse thrust. This AD requires installing kits that include relays, associated wiring, and a thrust reverser fail annunciator. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent stowage of the thrust reversers, which could cause a runway overrun during a rejected takeoff or landing, and consequent structural failure and possible injury to occupants.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Beechcraft Corporation, TMDC, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201-0085; telephone: 316-676-8238; fax: 316-671-2540; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jeffrey Englert, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Beechcraft Corporation Model BAe.125 series 1000A and 1000B airplanes and Model Hawker 1000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Mr. Kevin Maher expressed support for the NPRM.
Mr. Kenneth Rittenhouse of Becker Aviation LLC requested that we not require installation of the service kits, but leave the installation decision up to the individual owner/operator. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that the NPRM mentions that there have not been any issues reported involving Model BAe.125 airplanes but does mention that those airplanes have a similar engine/thrust reverser system to airplanes on which the problem was reported. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that if you examine the Learjet Model 60 and the Model Hawker 1000 systems, the Hawker 1000 is much more robust with redundant capabilities. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he does not believe the unsafe condition has ever been an issue with the Model Hawker 1000 airplanes, and that it is extremely unjust to force operators to comply with this modification that costs 15 percent of the total value of the airplane.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. We recognize that maintaining airplanes in an airworthy condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. Installation of the service kit corrects a potential unsafe condition that could cause a runway overrun during a rejected takeoff or landing, and consequent structural failure and possible injury to occupants. The service kit was designed and proposed by the airplane original equipment manufacturer as its best correction option. The root cause of the unsafe condition is incorrect software logic within the engine's electronic control unit. We acknowledge the commenter's statement indicating that “the Hawker 1000 is much more robust with redundant capabilities,” however, the commenter did not submit any substantiating data to support that statement. We have determined that this unsafe condition exists on the Model Hawker 1000 airplanes as well as Beechcraft Corporation Model BAe.125 Series 1000A and 1000B airplanes. We might approve requests to revise the applicability of this AD if the request includes data that justifies such a revision and provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Beechcraft Service Bulletin 78-4133, dated May 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing kits having part numbers 140-9005 and 140-9006, which include relays, associated wiring, and a thrust reverser fail annunciator. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Beechcraft Corporation (type certificate previously held by Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company) airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model BAe.125 series 1000A and 1000B airplanes, serial numbers 258151, 258159, and 259004 through 259042 inclusive.
(2) Model Hawker 1000 airplanes, serial numbers 259003 and 259043 through 259052 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust.
This AD was prompted by reports of inadvertent stowage of the thrust reversers, which can result in high forward engine thrust even though the throttle is commanding reverse thrust. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent stowage of the thrust reversers, which could cause a runway overrun during a rejected takeoff or landing, and consequent structural failure and possible injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 600 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Install kits having part numbers 140-9005 and 140-9006, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Beechcraft Service Bulletin 78-4133, dated May 2015, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
A note in the Accomplishment Instructions of Beechcraft Service Bulletin 78-4133, dated May 2015, instructs operators to contact Beechcraft Corporation if any difficulty is encountered in accomplishing the service bulletin. However, any deviation from the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Jeffrey Englert, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4167; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Beechcraft Service Bulletin 78-4133, dated May 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Beechcraft service information identified in this AD, contact Beechcraft Corporation, TMDC, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201-0085; telephone: 316-676-8238; fax: 316-671-2540; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. This AD requires reinforcing the forward pressure bulkhead at a certain stringer on both the left-hand and right-hand sides, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0209, dated September 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A319, A320, and Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal (ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could develop on the forward pressure bulkhead at Frame (FR) 35 on left hand (LH) side and right hand (RH) side.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, a reinforcement modification was developed, which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1268 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires reinforcement of the centre fuselage forward pressure bulkhead at FR35.
The forward pressure bulkhead reinforcement includes related investigative actions of measuring the diameters of certain fastener holes, and if they are not oversized, doing a rotating probe inspection for cracking of the fastener holes.
Required corrective actions include cold expanding crack-free holes or repairing oversize or cracked holes by using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
American Airlines requested that we reference Revision 03 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, dated May 7, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information.
We agree with American Airlines' request. No additional work is specified by this revision for airplanes modified by any previous issue. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015; and revised paragraph (i) of this AD to also give credit for previous actions accomplished in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02, dated July 15, 2014.
United Airlines (UAL) stated that the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02, dated July 15, 2014, does not match the NPRM applicability. UAL also stated that the NPRM applicability does not mention pre-modification 153832 airplanes, and that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02, dated July 15, 2014, is classified as Airbus Modification 153832.
UAL stated that several alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) may be needed because Airbus will add to the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02, dated July 15, 2014, after operators purchase an extended design service goal from Airbus.
We agree to clarify the applicability. The requirements of this AD apply to all airplanes identified in the applicability of the AD. If there is any conflict between the AD applicability and the service information effectivity, then the AD takes precedence. The applicability of this AD also matches the applicability of the corresponding MCAI AD.
If operators are planning to operate the airplane beyond the LOV of engineering data approved for the original type design, the actions specified in this AD must be done in order to address the identified unsafe condition. We acknowledge that AMOCs may be needed to allow the use of future revisions of the service information. Therefore, we encourage operators to coordinate with Airbus for effective planning and compliance with the AD requirements if they intend to operate their fleet beyond its LOV. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
UAL questioned why there is no terminating action in the proposed AD. UAL stated that the reinforcement specified in this proposed AD is intended to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead but there is no reference to related inspection tasks or termination of existing Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs). UAL noted that, for example, ALI 533186 is applicable for pre-Mod 153832 (Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268) airplanes. UAL stated this will cause confusion as to whether or not ALI inspections are required if there is no terminating action paragraph.
In regard to UAL's question on terminating action, ALI inspections
However, when the effectivity of an ALI inspection identifies pre-modification airplanes, then it is not applicable to airplanes in a post-modification configuration. Thus, ALI inspections that are identified as pre-Mod 153832 (Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268) do not affect airplanes on which the reinforcement specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268 has been done. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for reinforcing the forward pressure bulkhead at frame 35, stringer 30, on both the left-hand and right-hand sides; and for doing repairs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 21 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $85,680, or $1,785 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective August 12, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first: Reinforce the forward pressure bulkhead at frame 35, stringer 30, on both the left-hand and right-hand sides; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for repair
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 any of the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, dated January 8, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 01, dated July 23, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02, dated July 15, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2014-0209, dated September 19, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of water leakage from the potable water system due to improperly installed waterline couplings, and water leaking into the electronics equipment (EE) bays from above the floor in the main cabin, resulting in water on the equipment in the EE bays. This AD requires replacing the potable waterline couplings above the forward and aft EE bays with new, improved couplings. This AD also requires sealing the main cabin floor areas above the aft EE bay, installing drip shields and foam blocks, and rerouting the wire bundles near the drip shields above the equipment in the aft EE bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent a water leak from an improperly installed potable water system coupling, or main cabin water source, which could cause the equipment in the EE bays to become wet, resulting in an electrical short and potential loss of system functions essential for safe flight.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 12, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Airline Pilots Association International stated that it concurs with the contents of the NPRM.
United Airlines (UAL) stated that it supports the compliance time of 60 months to accomplish the actions proposed by the NPRM.
Mr. Geoffrey Barrance requested that we revise the compliance times specified in the NPRM to before further flight. Mr. Barrance stated that, in view of the effect of common mode faults to nullify the safety design of critical avionic systems housed in the avionics bay, this matter needs to be treated with the greatest urgency and that the correction of the problem should be required with far greater urgency than the timescales proposed in the NPRM. Mr. Barrance stated an example of the automatic landing function of the automatic flight control system that does not and cannot take into account common mode faults such as water ingress into multiple line replaceable units (LRUs), which are present to provide functional redundancy and fault tolerance. Mr. Barrance stated that no probability can be assessed for unwanted behavior resulting from water ingress into multiple redundant LRUs.
UAL requested that we extend the proposed compliance time from 24 months to 30 months for accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015. UAL stated that if maintenance requires an unforeseen disassembly of the airplane for access or to correct a test failure, a 30-month period is required to schedule the clamp inspection and replacement in a heavy check.
We do not agree to revise the compliance times required by this AD. In developing appropriate compliance times for this AD, we considered not only the safety implications, including evaluation of the hazards associated with water ingress into multiple redundant LRUs, but the manufacturer's recommendations, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within an interval of time that corresponds to typical scheduled maintenance for affected operators. After considering all the available information, we have determined that the compliance times, as proposed, represent appropriate intervals of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Operators are always permitted to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time. Operators wanting additional time to comply with the requirements of an AD may request adjustments to the compliance time under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD. We will consider requests for an adjustment of the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UAL requested that we approve the use of flame retardant (FR) moisture barrier tapes Nitto 11611-MB polyurethane tape or BMS8-346 Type II, Class 4 tape (3M 8657) as alternates to the BMS8-346 Type 1, Class 1 moisture barrier tape (Patco D9100) specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787 81205 SB530029-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015. UAL stated that during a supplemental type certificate test for a Model 737 airplane, burn testing was performed on the Patco D9100 tape by Zodiac Northwest Aerospace Technologies, and it failed the 12-second vertical test. UAL stated that, therefore, the Patco D9100 tape could not be certified to meet the 14 CFR 25.853 flammability requirements.
We do not agree with UAL's request. We have contacted Boeing who provided evidence that BMS8-346 Type 1, Class 1 moisture barrier tape (Patco D9100) material passed the 12-second vertical burn test. UAL did not submit specific evidence to substantiate that Nitto 11611-MB polyurethane tape or BMS8-346 Type II, Class 4 tape (3M 8657) is compliant and that BMS8-346 Type 1, Class 1 moisture barrier tape (Patco D9100) material is non-compliant. Under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that alternative tapes are compliant. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing and UAL requested that we revise the NPRM to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 002, dated January 26, 2016; and
We agree with the commenters' requests to use the most current service information. We have revised this AD as described below.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015, adds notes, revises the waiting time in the leak test, and corrects typographical errors. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to reference this service information.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 002, dated January 26, 2016, extends the 24-month compliance time for sealing floor panels and seat tracks to 60 months; clarifies installation of components, revises tape requirements; revises sealant callouts; and corrects kit contents. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (h)(1) of this AD to reference this service information.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016, extends the 24-month compliance time for installing drip shields and foam blocks to 60 months. This service information also revises the airplane groups into configurations to account for airplanes on which the drip shield between the floor beams at station (STA) 1233 and STA 1257 was not installed due to interference with wire bundles over the P100 panel. This service information also clarifies certain instructions, revises certain task hour estimates, and removes one airplane from the effectivity. This service information erroneously specifies “Group 6, Configuration 1” airplanes where it should specify “Group 7, Configuration 1” airplanes for Task 29 in multiple places. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (h)(2) of this AD to reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016. We have added new paragraph (i) to specify an exception for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016.
We have also added new paragraph (j) of this AD to provide credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015; as applicable. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Mr. Geoffrey Barrance requested that we conduct an internal review and a review with the manufacturer as to why the airplane equipment bay design was not reviewed and required to protect the avionics LRUs from water ingress at the time of certification. Mr. Barrance stated that this is not a new issue and must be a standard check item on design reviews and certification signoff. Mr. Barrance stated that this is a design and certification omission, not primarily a problem with the quality of work by the people doing the installation of the potable waterlines.
We partially agree with Mr. Barrance's request. We agree that this is a design issue that increased the likelihood of mis-installation, and not primarily a problem with the quality of work by personnel installing the potable waterlines. We asked the manufacturer to conduct a root-cause analysis to determine how it permitted design issues that created the unsafe condition. We are working with the manufacturer to determine if their company processes must be updated to better identify these hazards. The actions required by this AD address only the results of that analysis that directly relate to the identified design issues, and mandate changes to correct those issues.
We disagree that the EE bay design was not reviewed and required to protect the avionics LRUs from water ingress at the time of certification. A hazard analysis was completed for these systems, as part of the certification process, which required known hazards to be addressed. This event shows that despite the hazard analysis during the design and certification phase, further improvement is needed to remove the unsafe condition. Airplane manufacturers are responsible for the safety of their products and services, and must be in compliance with applicable safety requirements. As a component of our safety management system, we verify that the safety systems of the design approval holder meet applicable requirements. Working with approval holders during the design development process, we strive to avoid unsafe conditions in the first place. The design for this system was evaluated during the certification process and found at the time to be compliant. We also verify that the approval holders' processes, products, and services continue to maintain safety of their product during the operational phases of their service life. In this regard, we have evaluated the issues related to this system and acted on them.
We are continuously evaluating our certification system and procedures and improving them when problems are found. In addition, if the FAA is made aware of issues occurring on a certificated product, we conduct an investigation, evaluate the manufacturer's root-cause analysis, and make a determination whether or not an unsafe condition exists. We then take appropriate action to mitigate the unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed the following service information.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 002, dated January 26, 2016.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016.
This service information describes procedures for replacing the potable waterline couplings above the forward and aft EE bays with new, improved couplings; sealing the floors, seat tracks, and lavatories above the aft EE bay; installing drip shields and foam blocks; and rerouting the wire bundles adjacent to the drip shields above the aft EE bay. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015.
(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 002, dated January 26, 2016.
(3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 38, Water/Waste; and Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of water leakage from the potable water system due to improperly installed waterline couplings, and water leaking into the electronics equipment (EE) bays from above the floor in the main cabin, resulting in water on the equipment in the EE bays. We are issuing this AD to prevent a water leak from an improperly installed potable water system coupling, or main cabin water source, which could cause the equipment in the EE bays to become wet, resulting in an electrical short and potential loss of system functions essential for safe flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing potable waterline couplings located above the forward and aft EE bays with new, improved couplings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015. Before further flight after doing the replacement, do a potable water system leak test and repair any leaks found before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Apply sealant to the main cabin floor areas located above the aft EE bay, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 002, dated January 26, 2016.
(2) Install drip shields and foam blocks, and reroute the wire bundles above the equipment in the aft EE bay, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016, except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016, specifies “Group 6, Configuration 1” airplanes in reference to Task 29, the correct airplane group identification is “Group 7, Configuration 1” airplanes.
This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015.
(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015.
(3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 001, dated March 26, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, alteration, or modification required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB380009-00, Issue 002, dated December 9, 2015.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530029-00, Issue 002, dated January 26, 2016.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530031-00, Issue 002, dated March 16, 2016.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of a manufacturing oversight, in which a supplier omitted the required protective finish on certain bushings installed in the rear spar upper chord on horizontal stabilizers, which could lead to galvanic corrosion and consequent cracking of the rear spar upper chord. This AD requires an inspection or records check to determine if affected horizontal stabilizers are installed, related investigative actions, and for affected horizontal stabilizers, repetitive inspections for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the rear spar upper chord, which can result in the failure of the upper chord and consequent departure of the horizontal stabilizer from the airplane, which can lead to loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) stated that it supports the NPRM. Boeing stated that is concurs with the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE (
Airlines for America (A4A) requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD to state “This AD applies to all horizontal stabilizers with serial numbers identified in Boeing SB 737-55A1097.” A4A explained that the proposed AD is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; however, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, provides a list of affected horizontal stabilizers by serial number. A4A expressed that the physical plate inspections required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD are excessive and unneeded, as operators normally track serialized components without the need to physically inspect the airframe. A4A further reasoned that when paragraph (c) of the proposed AD is written against all Model 737 Next Generation airframes, the complexity of compliance reporting becomes more burdensome. The net result, stated A4A, is indefinite record keeping of AD compliance for airplanes that are not equipped with horizontal stabilizers affected by the manufacturing oversight.
We do not agree to revise the applicability of this AD as requested by the commenter. Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD gives operators the option of performing either a records check or an inspection. If the operator's records are sufficient to determine the serial number of the horizontal stabilizers on the affected airplane, then a physical inspection is not required. Furthermore, the affected horizontal stabilizers are rotable parts, so it is possible that an affected horizontal stabilizer could be installed on numerous airplanes during its service life, even on a new production airplane once it enters service. As specified in paragraph 2.B.(2) of Chapter 6 of the AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C (
A4A requested that we revise paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to allow removal of an affected horizontal stabilizer, and replacement with an unaffected or an affected horizontal stabilizer that is within the parameters of paragraph 1.E. “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. A4A explained that paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD requires that the inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, be accomplished on any horizontal stabilizer found to be within the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, and the compliance times found in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance.” A4A expressed that if cracking is found, operators must repair in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD; paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD requires repair in accordance with paragraph (j) of the proposed AD before further flight.
We agree. We have determined that removing a damaged horizontal stabilizer and replacing it with a serviceable horizontal stabilizer, as provided in paragraph (i) of this AD, addresses the identified unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD accordingly.
A4A requested that the FAA and Boeing review other non-destructive test (NDT) inspection options such as an ultrasound process to satisfy the proposed inspection requirements. A4A pointed out that paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD specifies a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) method for inspection of the rear spar upper chord. A4A explained that the FAA should be aware that other methods, specifically
We partially agree. We agree with the commenter that other inspection methods may be better NDT diagnostic techniques and note that alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) have been granted to ADs when updated service information containing improved procedures to address an unsafe condition becomes available.
We disagree to include other inspection options in this final rule, because the inspection technique required in this AD adequately addresses the unsafe condition and is accompanied by service information, which includes detectable crack lengths and inspection intervals. If additional service information that provides alternative NDT inspection methods becomes available, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the inspection method would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.
A4A requested that we reword paragraphs (g) and (i) of the proposed AD to allow operators to maintain or install any affected horizontal stabilizer on any airplane, provided that the horizontal stabilizer is, or will be, inspected as specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. A4A explained that paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of the proposed AD preclude installation of an affected horizontal stabilizer without accomplishing the required inspection. A4A explained further that other maintenance activity could cause a horizontal stabilizer to be removed and reinstalled prior to reaching the compliance times specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. With the potential interpretation of paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD being to inspect immediately, the initial inspection would be significantly accelerated, and the inspection schedule would be altered for the remaining life of the component.
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we clarify the parts installation restrictions specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to reduce the burden for operators. ANA explained that parts installation is restricted based on its serial number, and that paragraph (i)(2)(i) of the proposed AD requires initial inspection specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD before further flight. ANA expressed that this requirement is applicable if the flight cycles and/or the date of issuance the original certificate of airworthiness, or the original export certificate of airworthiness for the horizontal stabilizer are unknown or have already exceeded the proposed compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD. ANA reasoned that, if the flight cycles and the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness of the horizontal stabilizer are known, and the flight cycles and years on the horizontal stabilizer are less than the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, operators may conduct the inspection specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
We agree to clarify. An affected horizontal stabilizer that has not reached the inspection threshold or the next repeat interval is still in compliance with this AD at the time it is installed on the airplane. We have revised paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD to read “Initial and repetitive HFEC inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD are completed within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.” We also agree to clarify that the 10-year compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E. “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, is measured using the airplane the affected horizontal stabilizer was delivered on.
A4A requested that repair instructions be provided either in a revision to the service information, or via the structural repair manual (SRM). A4A also requested that the proposed AD be revised to include a preventive, terminating action including the option to remove and replace the subject bushings in the upper chord fitting during a heavy check schedule. A4A expressed that the NPRM and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, provide neither specific repair methods nor a means to terminate the inspections. A4A reasoned that the NPRM requires corrective action for any crack that is discovered, and that such action is to be performed in accordance with paragraph (j) of the proposed AD, which is the AMOC section. A4A said that, although no known inspections have revealed cracking, we (the FAA) must believe that findings will occur, and that operators would benefit by having guidance from Boeing without the need for an AMOC request. Similarly, A4A expressed, without a repair plan, there should also be a means of terminating the inspections entirely. A4A pointed to a recent experience concerning seat track cracking that exposed the difficulties of embarking upon a required inspection plan without a defined recovery path. A4A referred to AD 2013-23-04, Amendment 39-17659 (78 FR 68693, November 15, 2013) (“AD 2013-23-04”), and stated that AD also directed operators to the AMOC process.
We do not agree. An AD is issued to address an identified unsafe condition, as required by 14 CFR part 39. The determination of the unsafe condition, mitigating action, and compliance times in this AD has all been coordinated with Boeing. This AD is being issued to address the lack of corrosion protection on a critical structural element. As a result, dissimilar metal corrosion may cause cracking of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord. With no service history of cracking yet reported, it is expected that any cracking will be limited and not result in a significant disruption to affected operators. The inspections required by this AD provide an acceptable level of safety for the affected airplanes. We have reviewed with Boeing the implementation issues associated with AD 2013-23-04 and expect that Boeing will provide us with approvable data for repair and terminating actions in a timely manner to address any cracking found.
For these reasons, we do not consider that delaying this action until after the possible release of revised service information is warranted, since sufficient technology and service information currently exist to accomplish the required actions within the compliance time. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of AMOCs for revised service information, repairs, or terminating actions if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate they would provide an acceptable level of safety. For these reasons, we have made no changes to this AD in this regard.
ANA stated that paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the proposed AD should refer to Part 1, and paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD should refer to Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. ANA did not provide a reason for this request.
From these statements, we infer that ANA is requesting that we revise paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD. We agree that the changes requested by ANA provide additional clarity. We have added “Part 1 of” to paragraph (g)(1)(i) and “Part 2 of” to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
A4A also requested that, prior to release of the AD, we assure that Boeing has sections of the rear spar available for the horizontal stabilizer including a typical splice repair plan for each affected 737-NG fleet. A4A also requested that Boeing also provide or have available, horizontal stabilizers that are service ready prior to the release of the AD.
We do not agree. We do not consider that delaying this action until Boeing has assured that replacement parts will be available is warranted. This AD is issued to address an identified unsafe condition, as required by 14 CFR part 39. The determination of the unsafe condition, mitigating action, and compliance times in this AD has all been coordinated with Boeing. This AD is being issued to address the lack of corrosion protection on a critical structural element. As a result, dissimilar metal corrosion may cause cracking of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord. With no service history of cracking yet reported, it is expected that any cracking will be limited and not be a significant disruption to affected operators. We understand that Boeing will make horizontal stabilizer parts and assemblies available as necessary for operators to address possible on-condition actions. However, since it is unknown how many repairs or replacements may be necessary and what parts would be necessary for each repair, we cannot estimate the type and number of parts needed. If parts availability becomes an issue, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time for doing a repair or replacement if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection or records check to determine if affected horizontal stabilizers are installed, related investigative actions, HFEC inspections for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and corrective action if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,397 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspections that would be required based on the results of the inspection or records check. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 12, 2016.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and 900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of a manufacturing oversight, in which a supplier omitted the required protective finish on certain bushings installed in the rear spar upper chord on horizontal stabilizers, which could lead to galvanic corrosion and consequent cracking of the rear spar upper chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the rear spar upper chord, which can result in the failure of the upper chord and consequent departure of the horizontal stabilizer from the airplane, which can lead to loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within the compliance time identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do a records check to determine if an affected horizontal stabilizer is installed and if any horizontal stabilizer has been exchanged, and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. Affected horizontal stabilizers are identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.
(ii) Do an inspection of the horizontal stabilizer identification plate to determine if any affected horizontal stabilizer is installed, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. Affected horizontal stabilizers are identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.
(2) If, during any action required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, any affected horizontal stabilizer is found: Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within the compliance time identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, or replace with a serviceable horizontal stabilizer as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a horizontal stabilizer on any airplane, except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) A horizontal stabilizer may be installed if the part is inspected in accordance with “Part 2: Horizontal Stabilizer Identification Plate Inspection” of the Accomplishments Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, and no affected serial number is found.
(2) A horizontal stabilizer may be installed if the part is inspected in accordance with “Part 2: Horizontal Stabilizer Identification Plate Inspection” of the Accomplishments Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, and an affected serial number is found, provided that the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD are done, as applicable.
(i) Initial and repetitive HFEC inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD are completed within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(ii) All applicable corrective actions are done before further flight as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM 120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide a simplified method of accounting for gains and losses on shares in money market funds (MMFs). The final regulations also provide guidance regarding information reporting requirements for shares in MMFs. The final regulations respond to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules that change the amount for which certain MMF shares are distributed, redeemed, and repurchased. The final regulations affect MMFs and their shareholders.
Grace Cho at (202) 317-6895 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations) under sections 446 and 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The regulations provide a method of accounting for gain or loss on shares in MMFs and are intended to simplify tax compliance for holders of shares in MMFs affected by SEC regulations that impose liquidity fees or change how certain MMF shares are priced.
An MMF is a type of investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act) and regulated as an MMF under Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act (17 CFR 270.2a-7). MMFs have historically sought to keep stable the prices at which their shares are distributed, redeemed, and repurchased. The securities that Rule 2a-7 permits an MMF to hold generally result in no more than minimal fluctuations in the MMF's net asset value per share (NAV).
MMFs meeting the requirements of Rule 2a-7 have been permitted to value their assets based on the assets' cost, with certain adjustments (amortized cost method), and to price their shares by rounding the resulting NAV to the nearest 1 percent (penny rounding). These methods have enabled MMFs to maintain constant share prices in almost all circumstances. Because most MMFs target a $1.00 share price, an MMF that fails to maintain a constant share price is said to “break the buck.”
The SEC MMF Reform Rules generally bar the use of the amortized cost method and penny rounding for certain MMFs (floating-NAV MMFs) and require a floating-NAV MMF to value its assets using market factors and to round its price per share to the nearest basis point (the fourth decimal place, in the case of a fund with a $1.0000 share price). Certain government-security-focused MMFs (government MMFs) and certain MMFs the beneficial owners of which are limited to natural persons (retail MMFs) may continue to use the amortized cost method and penny rounding. (A government MMF or retail MMF that continues to use the amortized cost method and penny rounding is called a stable-NAV MMF.)
The SEC MMF Reform Rules also establish circumstances under which an MMF is permitted or required to impose a liquidity fee or is permitted to impose a redemption gate. When an MMF has a liquidity fee in effect, the liquidity fee reduces the proceeds received by all redeeming shareholders. A redemption gate is the temporary suspension of redemptions of shares in the MMF. Liquidity fees and redemption gates
The Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-107012-14) in the
A request for a public hearing was received, and the hearing was held on November 19, 2014. The IRS received written comments responding to the proposed regulations regarding the method of accounting for gains and losses on shares in MMFs. The written comments are available for public inspection at
Under the proposed regulations, the NAV method would apply only to floating-NAV MMF shares. In the preamble to the proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments regarding whether the NAV method should be a permissible method of accounting for stable-NAV MMF shares.
Although stable-NAV MMFs seek to maintain constant share prices, there are circumstances in which shares in a stable-NAV MMF will give rise to gain or loss. On rare occasions, shares in a stable-NAV MMF may be redeemed at a price other than the target price, such as when the MMF breaks the buck. In addition, a stable-NAV MMF may impose liquidity fees, which will generally result in the realization of a loss by a redeeming shareholder. If the acquisition of other shares causes such a redemption to be a wash sale under section 1091, section 1091(d) will generally cause the basis of the acquired shares to exceed the cost of the shares. Because the price of a stable-NAV MMF share rarely changes, any disposition of those acquired, higher-basis shares will likely result in another loss, which also may be deferred by the wash sale rules. Therefore, even if a liquidity fee is in effect for only one redemption by a shareholder and the share price of the MMF remains constant, that fee may cause a difference between the basis and value of the shareholder's MMF shares that persists indefinitely. Determining gain or loss and basis on each transaction in a stable-NAV MMF, taking into account the wash sale rules, would impose significant burdens on shareholders under these circumstances. To eliminate those burdens, a shareholder might need to terminate the shareholder's entire interest in the affected MMF (and not initiate a new position until after the end of the period described in section 1091(a)).
Commenters recommended that the NAV method be applicable not only to shares in floating-NAV MMFs but also to shares in stable-NAV MMFs. The commenters added that many shareholders of stable-NAV MMFs may be retail shareholders (generally, individuals) who are likely to rely upon the cost basis reporting provided by funds or brokers for their other mutual funds. Those individuals are unlikely to have the systems necessary to record gains and losses and to track wash sales and the resulting basis adjustments.
The NAV method would reduce the complexity, and any tax-based motivation to terminate investments in MMFs, that would result from the imposition of a liquidity fee by a stable-NAV MMF. Under the NAV method, any loss that resulted from the imposition of a liquidity fee by an MMF would be determined for a shareholder's entire interest in the MMF (or in an account) for the appropriate taxable year (or computation period) rather than for a single transaction. Therefore, the wash sale rules would not defer the loss. The NAV method also requires fewer and simpler computations than traditional accounting, even if there are no wash sales. For the years after an MMF breaks the buck or imposes a liquidity fee, the NAV method simplifies recordkeeping, because the gain or loss for each year is based on changes in the NAV during that year. Therefore, the final regulations permit taxpayers to apply the NAV method to shares in stable-NAV MMFs.
The proposed regulations would provide that if a taxpayer applies the NAV method to shares in any MMF for a taxable year, the taxpayer must apply the NAV method to its shares in all MMFs for which that method is permissible.
Commenters requested that the final regulations permit taxpayers to apply different methods to shares in different MMFs or to shares in a single MMF held in different accounts. Commenters said that some taxpayers may receive sufficient information about their shares in certain MMFs to compute gain or loss realized on each transaction and that those taxpayers should be permitted to compute gain or loss realized on each transaction for those MMFs.
Commenters also noted that taxpayers may hold shares in a single MMF through different kinds of accounts (for example, an account with a broker and an account with the MMF itself) and may receive different information for the different accounts. The commenters recommended that, because of that possibility, taxpayers should be permitted to use different accounting methods for shares held in different accounts. Commenters also noted that many MMF shareholders will be large institutional investors, which might hold shares in the same MMF through separate accounts controlled by different divisions.
In response to these comments, the final regulations permit MMF shareholders to use different methods of accounting for shares in different MMFs or for shares in a single MMF held in different accounts.
Under the NAV method, computation periods are the periods that a taxpayer selects for computing gain and loss for an MMF. The proposed regulations would provide that computation periods may be the taxpayer's taxable year or a shorter period, provided that (i) computation periods are of approximately equal duration, (ii) every day during the taxable year falls within one, and only one, computation period,
Most regulated investment companies (RICs) must pay an excise tax under section 4982 if they do not make the required distribution described in section 4982(b) for a calendar year. The required distribution is generally 98 percent of the RIC's ordinary income for the calendar year, plus 98.2 percent of the RIC's capital gain net income for the one-year period ending on October 31 of the calendar year. A commenter requested clarification that a RIC that holds MMF shares may use the NAV method for excise tax computations. That commenter also requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS confirm that a RIC that uses the NAV method is permitted to use the one-year period from November 1 to October 31 as its computation period for excise tax purposes. The commenter explained that RICs generally account for items that are marked to market using two different one-year periods for income tax and excise tax purposes. The commenter explained that, under section 4982(e)(2)(A), the term “capital gain net income” when used in section 4982 is determined by treating the one-year period ending on October 31 of any calendar year as the company's taxable year.
The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the NAV method should be applicable for purposes of the computations required by section 4982 and that the taxable year for purposes of those computations should be the relevant period under section 4982(e). The final regulations adopt this change.
The final regulations, however, require a RIC to be consistent in applying the NAV method to MMF shares for income tax and excise tax purposes. For each MMF in each account, the final regulations generally require a RIC to use the NAV method either for both income tax and excise tax computations or for neither computation. The final regulations also clarify how a RIC may change to or from the NAV method.
The final regulations require a RIC to use the same computation periods for purposes of both excise tax and income tax computations. Therefore, under the final regulations, a RIC using the NAV method for its shares in an MMF generally treats the one-year period for which gain or loss from the MMF would be included in the amount determined under section 4982(e)(2) or (e)(6) (the section 4982 period) like a taxable year in applying the NAV method to determine the RIC's required distribution under section 4982(b).
The final regulations eliminate the requirement that computation periods be of approximately equal duration. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe that this requirement is essential to the operation of the NAV method, and eliminating the requirement will allow taxpayers more flexibility. In particular, permitting computation periods of unequal duration will reduce the burden on RICs of complying with the requirement of consistent computation periods for income and excise tax purposes. For example, a RIC that applies the NAV method to its shares in an MMF (held as a capital asset) and that has an income tax year ending on January 31 may meet the consistency requirements with two computation periods of unequal duration—one ending on January 31 and the other on October 31. The RIC also may use additional computation periods ending on other dates, such as December 31.
Under the proposed regulations, gain and loss under the NAV method would be determined by reference to the fair market value of MMF shares. Commenters requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS clarify that the fair market value of an MMF share for this purpose is the NAV reported by the MMF. One commenter suggested that the fair market value of a share in an MMF should be the published NAV as of the end of the relevant day (or the next trading day, if the day in question is not a trading day). A second commenter suggested that, because MMFs may strike several NAVs throughout the day, the fair market value should be the next published NAV after a transaction.
In response to these comments, the final regulations clarify that the fair market value of a share in an MMF at the time of a transaction is presumed to be the published NAV (or other published amount for which the MMF would redeem the share, determined without regard to any liquidity fees (other redemption amount)). For purposes of computing the ending value for a computation period, the presumption applies to the last published NAV (or other redemption amount) in that computation period. For purposes of determining the fair market value of MMF shares surrendered or received in a redemption or exchange, the presumption generally applies to the NAV (or other redemption amount) used to determine the consideration received in the transaction, or if the consideration is not based on a published NAV (or other redemption amount), the first NAV (or other redemption amount) published for the MMF shares after the transaction. If no NAV (or other redemption amount) is published, or if facts and circumstances indicate that the NAV (or other redemption amount) does not represent the fair market value of a share in the MMF, the fair market value is determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances.
Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer's net investment in an MMF for a computation period would equal the aggregate cost of shares in the MMF purchased during the computation period, minus the aggregate amount received during the computation period in redemption of shares in the MMF, subject to certain adjustments. A commenter suggested that the final regulations clarify that the aggregate amount received is based on: (i) If cash is received, the cash proceeds, (ii) if shares in another MMF are received, the published NAV of the shares received as of the end of the day on which the redemption or exchange occurs (or the next trading day, if the day in question is not a trading day), or (iii) if other non-cash property is received, the NAV of the redeemed or exchanged shares as of the end of the day on which the redemption or exchange occurs (or the next trading day if the day in question is not a trading day or, if the fund will
The final regulations include provisions for determining the amount received for purposes of computing a taxpayer's net investment in an MMF for a computation period. If the consideration received in exchange for an MMF share consists only of cash, other MMF shares, or both, the amount received is the amount of any cash plus the fair market value of any MMF shares received. If the consideration includes any property other than cash or MMF shares, the amount received is determined by reference to the fair market value of the surrendered MMF shares.
The same commenter recommended that a phrase in § 1.446-7(b)(5)(i)(B) of the proposed regulations, “if the transaction is one in which gain or loss would be recognized,” be clarified to indicate that it refers to recognition of gain or loss other than pursuant to the NAV method. The final regulations make this clarification.
Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer's net investment would increase if, during the computation period, the taxpayer acquired any shares in an MMF other than by purchase. In such cases, the net investment increases by the adjusted basis (for purposes of determining loss) of each such share immediately after its acquisition. The proposed regulations would also provide that if that adjusted basis would be determined by reference to the basis of one or more shares in an MMF that are being disposed of by the taxpayer in a transaction in which gain or loss is not recognized (exchanged basis), then the basis of each such disposed share is treated as being the fair market value of that share at the time of its disposition. A commenter noted that the proposed regulations do not address a situation in which the shareholder receives a transferred basis in MMF shares acquired from another person. The commenter suggested that, in that situation, if the person from whom the shareholder acquired the shares used the NAV method, then the adjusted basis of the acquired shares should be treated as the published NAV applicable to the acquisition date.
The final regulations clarify the effect on net investment of a share acquired from another person with a transferred basis. Similar to the commenter's suggestion, the final regulations provide that, if a shareholder receives a transferred basis in one or more acquired MMF shares and the person from whom the shareholder acquired the shares used the NAV method, then the adjusted basis of the acquired shares will be their fair market value at the time of the acquisition, which value is presumed to be the next NAV (or other redemption amount) published by the MMF.
The proposed regulations would provide that if a taxpayer uses the NAV method for shares in an MMF and each of those shares otherwise would give rise to capital gain or loss if sold or exchanged in a computation period, then the gain or loss from the shares in the MMF is treated as capital gain or loss under the NAV method. Likewise, if each of the shares otherwise would give rise to ordinary gain or loss if sold or exchanged in a computation period, then the gain or loss is treated as ordinary gain or loss. If, however, the sale of all of the shares in the MMF would give rise to a combination of ordinary gain or loss and capital gain or loss if sold or exchanged in a computation period, then all gain or loss from the shares in the MMF is treated as capital gain or loss.
A commenter noted that the proposed regulations do not explain why all gain or loss should be treated as capital in the case of an account containing MMF shares of mixed character. The commenter recommended that the character of gain or loss with respect to a mixed character account be bifurcated based on the portion of the shares that would generate gain or loss of each character.
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that it is rare for a shareholder to hold shares of a single MMF the disposition of which would produce a mix of ordinary income and capital gain. Under that circumstance, a taxpayer may use different accounts to preserve the character of the shares that would produce ordinary income and capital gain. The purpose of the NAV method is to provide an alternative to traditional accounting for taxpayers seeking simplicity. The rationale for offering a method solely for MMFs is that the value of MMFs fluctuates so little that simplicity is more important than tracking each individual gain or loss. A rule that bifurcates gain or loss based on the value of the shares in a single account, when those values may change during a computation period, would make the NAV method more complex. That additional complexity is not warranted in light of the rarity of the circumstance the proposed bifurcation would address and the ability of shareholders to prevent the treatment of all gain or loss as capital by using separate accounts. Therefore, the final regulations retain the simplifying rule for mixed-character accounts.
Concurrently with the release of the proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2014-45 (2014-34 IRB 388), which provides that the wash sale rules in section 1091 will not be applied to redemptions of shares in floating-NAV MMFs. Commenters requested that the wash sale exemption, which is limited to floating-NAV MMFs, be extended to stable-NAV MMFs that impose liquidity fees.
The final regulations permit shareholders of stable-NAV MMFs to use the NAV method. A shareholder who uses the NAV method would not require an exemption from the wash sale rules because under the NAV method, net gain or loss is determined for each computation period, and no gain or loss is determined for any particular redemption of a taxpayer's shares in an MMF. Without a determination of loss for a particular redemption, that redemption does not implicate the wash sale rules. Because taxpayers may use the NAV method to prevent wash sales, the Treasury Department and IRS are not extending the exemption in Rev. Proc. 2014-45 to stable-NAV MMFs.
A commenter requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS issue guidance regarding the tax treatment of an MMF's receipt of financial support from an investment adviser to raise the NAV of the MMF (determined without the amortized cost method or penny rounding) to $1.0000. In addition, the commenter requested guidance regarding the diversification requirements of section 817(h) for a segregated asset account that qualifies as, or invests in, a government MMF. On May 5, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS released guidance related to both of these requests.
The commenter also requested (and later withdrew its request) that the Treasury Department and the IRS issue guidance providing tax-free treatment for certain divisions of MMFs into retail and institutional MMFs. The Treasury Department and the IRS have
The commenter also requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS issue guidance setting forth the proper tax treatment by an MMF of liquidity fees that the MMF imposes. In addition, the commenter requested guidance providing that, if an MMF imposes liquidity fees and subsequently distributes to shareholders amounts that correspond to amounts that the MMF retained as liquidity fees, the MMF will be deemed to have sufficient earnings and profits to treat the distribution as a dividend. These requests do not relate directly to the NAV method or to the information reporting provision in the proposed regulations and so are not addressed in these final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS may consider guidance on these questions in the future.
As under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer may adopt the NAV method for shares in a floating-NAV MMF by use of the method in the Federal income tax return for the first taxable year in which both (1) the taxpayer holds shares in that MMF and (2) that MMF is a floating-NAV MMF.
The final regulations provide that a taxpayer seeking to change to or from the NAV method must secure the consent of the Commissioner in accordance with § 1.446-1(e). Simultaneously with the publication of these regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing Rev. Proc. 2016-39 (2016-30 IRB), which provides the procedures by which a taxpayer may obtain automatic consent to change to or from the NAV method for shares in an MMF.
In certain circumstances, Rev. Proc. 2016-39 permits taxpayers to change to the NAV method on a federal tax return without filing a Form 3115, “Application for Change in Accounting Method.” This simplified procedure applies to a taxpayer that holds shares in a stable-NAV MMF and wants to change to the NAV method for a taxable year if (1) the taxpayer has not used the NAV method for shares in the MMF for any taxable year prior to the year of change, and (2) prior to the beginning of the year of change, either (a) the taxpayer's basis in each share of the MMF has been at all times equal to the MMF's target share price, or (b) the taxpayer has not realized any gain or loss with respect to shares in the MMF.
For certain other changes, Rev. Proc. 2016-39 provides automatic consent procedures that require a short Form 3115. For example, these automatic consent procedures apply to a taxpayer that (1) has adopted a realization method for shares in a floating-NAV MMF and wants to change to the NAV method for shares in that MMF, or (2) has adopted the NAV method for shares in a floating-NAV MMF and wants to change to a permissible realization method for shares in that MMF.
The final regulations concerning the NAV method apply to taxable years ending on or after July 8, 2016. For taxable years ending on or after July 28, 2014, and beginning before July 8, 2016, however, shareholders of MMFs may rely either on the rules concerning the NAV method in the proposed regulations or on the final regulations.
The final regulations concerning information reporting apply to sales of shares in calendar years beginning on or after July 8, 2016. Taxpayers and brokers (as defined in § 1.6045-1(a)(1)), however, may rely on the rules in the regulations concerning information reporting for sales of shares in calendar years beginning before July 8, 2016.
IRS Revenue Procedures cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue 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 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small businesses. No comments were received.
The principal author of the final regulations is Grace Cho, IRS Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). 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 1.446-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 446.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) Every day during the taxable year falls within one, and only one, computation period;
(ii) Each computation period contains days from only one taxable year; and
(iii) If the taxpayer is a regulated investment company (RIC) that is not described in section 4982(f)—
(A) The same computation periods are used for purposes of both income tax accounting under chapter 1 and excise tax computations under section 4982; and
(B) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section are also satisfied if applied by substituting the RIC's section 4982 period for the RIC's taxable year.
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) For purposes of determining the ending value of a taxpayer's shares in an MMF for a computation period under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the last published redemption amount on the last day of that computation period;
(B) For purposes of determining the value of MMF shares received in a redemption or exchange described in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, the published redemption amount for such MMF shares used to determine the consideration received in the redemption or exchange, or if the consideration received is not based on a published redemption amount, the first published redemption amount for such MMF shares after the redemption or exchange;
(C) For purposes of determining the amount received in a redemption or exchange described in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B) of this section in which the consideration received is based on a published redemption amount for the redeemed shares, that published redemption amount; and
(D) For purposes of determining the amount received in an exchange described in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B) of this section that is not described in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, or the amount of any adjustment resulting from a disposition transaction described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section, the first published redemption amount for the exchanged or disposed of MMF shares after the exchange or other transaction.
(iv)
(4)
(5)
(A) The aggregate cost of shares in the MMF purchased during the computation period (including purchases through reinvestment of dividends); minus
(B) The aggregate amount received during the computation period in redemption of (or otherwise in exchange for) shares in the MMF in transactions in which gain or loss would be recognized if the taxpayer did not apply the NAV method to the shares.
(ii)
(A) If no property other than cash and shares in one or more other MMFs is received, the amount of any cash plus the fair market value of any MMF shares received; or
(B) If any property other than cash or shares in one or more other MMFs is received, the fair market value of the redeemed MMF share.
(iii)
(B)
(6)
(7)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section, the ending value of the taxpayer's shares in the MMF for the immediately preceding computation period; or
(ii) For the first computation period in a taxable year, if the taxpayer did not use the NAV method for shares in the MMF for the immediately preceding taxable year, the aggregate adjusted basis of the taxpayer's shares in the MMF at the end of the immediately preceding taxable year.
(c)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(ii) In the case of a taxpayer that applies the NAV method to shares in an MMF, the gain or loss with respect to those shares for a computation period is treated as ordinary gain or loss provided the sale or exchange of every one of those shares during the computation period would give rise to ordinary gain or loss if the taxpayer did not apply the NAV method to the shares.
(iii) See paragraph (c)(5) of this section for the treatment of shares in a single MMF held in more than one account.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(ii)
(B)
(d)
(i) Fund is an MMF. Shareholder is a person whose taxable year is the calendar year. On January 1 of Year 1, Shareholder owns 5,000,000 shares in Fund with an adjusted basis of $5,000,000.00. The price of Fund shares has not varied from $1.00 from the date Shareholder acquired the shares through January 1 of Year 1. During that period, Shareholder has engaged in multiple purchases and redemptions of Fund shares, but Shareholder has reported no gains or losses with respect to the shares because Shareholder realized an amount in each redemption equal to Shareholder's basis in the redeemed shares. During Year 1, the price of Fund shares begins to float. During Year 1, Shareholder receives $32,158.23 in taxable dividends from Fund and makes 120 purchases of additional shares in Fund (including purchases through the reinvestment of those dividends) totaling $1,253,256.37 and 28 redemptions totaling $1,124,591.71. The fair market value of Shareholder's shares in Fund at the end of Year 1 is $5,129,750.00. All of Shareholder's shares in Fund are held in a single account and as capital assets. There is no adjustment to the basis in Shareholder's shares in Fund under any provision of internal revenue law during Year 1.
(ii) Prior to Year 1, Shareholder has had no gains or losses to report with respect to the
(iii) If Shareholder had instead adopted the calendar month as its computation period, it would have used the NAV method for every month of Year 1, even though prices of Fund shares may have been fixed for some months.
(e)
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi)
(B)
Office for Victims of Crime, Justice.
Final rule.
The Office for Victims of Crime (“OVC”) of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”), publishes this final rule to implement the victim assistance formula grant program (“Victim Assistance Program”) authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (“VOCA”). VOCA authorizes OVC to provide an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to each State and eligible territory for the financial support of services to crime victims by eligible crime victim assistance programs. The rule codifies and updates the existing VOCA Victim Assistance Program Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to reflect changes in OVC policy, needs of the crime victim services field, and VOCA itself.
Toni Thomas, Office for Victims of Crime, at (202) 307-5983.
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) authorizes the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to provide an annual formula grant from the Crime Victims Fund to each State and eligible territory for the purpose of providing assistance to victims of crime.
Most provisions in this final rule are substantively the same as the corresponding provisions of the Guidelines. The final rule reorganizes the program rules into six major divisions: (1)
The rules in the
The
The revised
The
The
The
As discussed in more detail under the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (in the Regulatory Review discussion below), the rule clarifies and updates existing Guidelines, but does not alter the existing program structure. Updating the existing Guidelines to clearly and accurately reflect the statutory parameters will facilitate State compliance with VOCA, and thus avoid potentially costly non-compliance findings. The rule makes only a few substantive changes to the existing Guidelines, and most of the changes expand State flexibility in the use of VOCA funding. Some changes, like allowing more flexibility to coordinate and leverage community resources, and adopt alternative monitoring strategies, impose no costs but allow States to use existing funding more efficiently. Other changes, which allow States to allocate funding to services not presently allowable under the Guidelines, could expand the types of victim service organizations funded with VOCA funds and the services provided by existing organizations. Such allocations of funding, however, are not mandated under the rule, and each State will continue to make the final decision about whether to change its funding allocations. This is not a change from the present discretion that States have to allocate funding according to their priorities. OVC anticipates that most States will continue to allocate the majority of VOCA funding to victim services for certain types of crimes (
This rule implements OVC's Victim Assistance Program, a formula grant program authorized by Section 1404 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, Public Law 98-473, codified at 42 U.S.C. 10603. This section of VOCA authorizes OVC to provide an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to each State for the financial support of services to victims of crime by eligible crime victim assistance programs. This rule supersedes the VOCA Guidelines (published at 62 FR 19607) that have been in effect since April 22, 1997, and reflects changes in OVC policy, the needs of the crime victim services' field, and VOCA itself, as well as the comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
OVC's Victim Assistance Program is funded from the Crime Victims Fund. The Fund receives Federal criminal fines, penalties, and assessments, as well as certain gifts and bequests, but does not receive any general tax revenue. The Crime Victims Fund is administered by OVC and amounts that may be obligated therefrom are allocated each year according to the VOCA formula at 42 U.S.C. 10601. The amount annually available for obligation through the VOCA formula allocations typically has been set by statute, through limits in the annual DOJ appropriation act, at less than the total amount available in the Fund. The VOCA formula specifies that (in most years) the first $20M available in the Fund for that year will go toward child abuse prevention and treatment programs, with a certain amount to be set-aside for programs to address child abuse in Indian Country. After that, such sums as may be necessary are available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorneys Offices to improve services to victims of Federal crime, and to operate a victim notification system. The remaining balance is allocated as follows: 47.5% for OVC's Victim Compensation Program, 47.5% for OVC's Victim Assistance Program, and 5% for the OVC Director to distribute in discretionary awards in certain statutorily defined categories. Generally, under the distribution rules for the Victim Compensation Program, if a portion of the 47.5% available for Compensation is not needed for that purpose, it is (per the statutory formula) made available to augment the Victim Assistance Program. The Victim Assistance Program distributes funds to States as mandated by VOCA, at 42 U.S.C. 10603. The VOCA statutory distribution formula provides each State with a base amount (presently $500,000 for each State and the District of Columbia; $200,000 for each eligible territory), and distributes the remainder proportionately, based on population.
OVC published the Final Program Guidelines, Victims of Crime Act, FY1997 Victim Assistance Program on April 22, 1997 (62 FR 19607). Those Guidelines were based on OVC experience with the Victim Assistance Program, legal opinions rendered since the inception of the program in 1986, and comments from the field on the Proposed Program Guidelines, which were published in the
On September 3, 2002, OVC published a notice of Proposed Program Guide at 67 FR 56444, seeking comments to refine the administration of the Victim Assistance Program further; thereafter, however, OVC chose not to issue final guidance to supersede the 1997 Guidelines. After receiving comments on the 2002 Proposed Program Guide, OVC instead decided to pursue the publication of codified program regulations rather than merely revise the guideline document. Throughout 2010, OVC sought preliminary input from the victim services field regarding improving victim services and potential modifications to the Victim Assistance Program rules that would facilitate such improvement.
OVC incorporated this input into a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which it published at 78 FR 52877 (Aug. 27, 2013), and OVC received 108 public comments over a 60 day period. OVC considered all comments submitted during the comment period in drafting this final rule.
The 1997 Guidelines have been outpaced by changes in VOCA, developments in the crime victim services field, technological advances, and new approaches to State administration of VOCA funding. This rule updates the program Guidelines to account for developments over the last decade and a half, and to reflect more accurately program parameters applicable to each participating entity. In so doing, OVC hopes to allow administering agencies and victim service providers fully to leverage the progress that the field has made over the last decade in knowledge of victim needs, victim service strategies, and efficient program administration, with the end goal of assisting crime victims more effectively. Many of the provisions in the existing Guidelines have been retained in substance, though the text has been reformatted in some cases. OVC describes below the main substantive changes to the program Guidelines, and the comments received.
The rule reorganizes the provisions of the Guidelines, primarily to accommodate the requirements for publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), but also to organize information more logically. The rule omits repetition of statutory language, except where needed for context and ease of use. OVC notes that the rule is drafted to be read
Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule conflated provisions applicable to VOCA-funded projects in some cases with provisions relating to a VOCA-eligible program, and several endorsed the National Association of Victim Assistance Administrators' (NAVAA) suggestions for reorganizing it. In the final rule, OVC more clearly distinguishes between the two concepts, and adopts most of the NAVAA's helpful suggestions for reorganizing the rule.
In connection with reorganizing the provisions of the final rule for greater logical consistency and clarity, OVC has moved or renumbered many of the sections of the proposed rule. In order to assist readers, a derivation table is included listing the sections of the final rule and the corresponding section or sections of the proposed rule. The public comments on provisions of the proposed rule are discussed below according to where those provisions are codified in the final rule.
Many commenters expressed their desire that the Crime Victims Fund “cap” be raised substantially. As such a change requires legislative action, it is beyond the scope of OVC's authority to do so. However, we note that the Department of Justice Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016 Appropriation Acts did substantially increase—more than threefold—the cap for those years.
The general provisions of the final rule—including statement of purpose, future guidance, and construction and severability—are largely unchanged from the proposed rule. OVC added a paragraph describing the date on which SAAs must comply with the rule. The rule applies upon its effective date to all OVC grants made after that date, except for funding under such grants that was obligated before the effective date. Pre-award obligations are a standard practice of SAAs under the VOCA Assistance Program, as the annual appropriation cycle typically does not permit for awards to be made until late in the fiscal year. VOCA Assistance grants typically have an award period that extends retroactively to October 1st of the fiscal year of the award, thus there may be funds under grants made after the effective date that were obligated by the SAA prior to the effective date, and subsequently ratified by OVC's approval of the grant. The final rule does not apply retroactively, and thus it does not require that SAAs anticipate rules that are not in effect when making such obligations. However, OVC will permit SAAs to apply the provisions that expand SAA discretion in the use funds (
The final rule contains several terms and definitions that are used throughout. These are set out in section 94.102 for ease of reference.
The definition of
Some commenters liked the proposed definition, but others wanted OVC to include more examples in the definition to illustrate coverage of a broader range of harms. OVC kept the more conceptual definition from the proposed rule, as it is substantively the same as the long-standing Guideline definition and because—as one commenter pointed out—this definition has been sufficiently broad to encompass the harm from various crimes on a wide and diverse range of individuals.
OVC has added a definition of the term
A commenter noted that OVC did not propose to define “sub-recipient” or “VOCA project,” and asked that OVC define these terms so as to differentiate between a VOCA-funded project, and the organization that is eligible to receive VOCA funds to undertake the project. OVC agrees and adds these definitions, and has made conforming changes throughout the rule.
The final rule adds a definition of the statutory term
OVC received many comments on the proposed definition of child abuse. Many commenters supported the proposed definition. Other commenters supported the proposed definition, but recommended changes or expressed concerns about certain parts of it. One commenter worried that the inclusion of the concept of children exposed to violence may lead states to view a non-offending parent who cannot leave an abusive household as a co-offender. OVC notes that the definition of child abuse in this rule does not control (or affect) how a state views or treats potential offenders. Nonetheless, it is OVC's express intent that the definition should not be misconstrued to mean that failure to leave an abusive relationship, in the absence of other action constituting abuse or neglect, is itself abuse or neglect. A commenter asked that the definition encompass sex and labor trafficking, and several others asked OVC to include slurs and family rejection as examples of the emotional abuse of children encompassed by the definition. OVC notes that the definition of child abuse is sufficiently broad to encompass these harms without listing specific abusive activities, if States consider them to be child abuse. Some commenters worried that the inclusion of exposure to violence would dilute available resources, and confuse States operating victim assistance programs.
OVC acknowledges resource limitations facing many States, but keeps the expanded definition in the final rule to allow States to prioritize within the category based on local capacity and needs. The Department's own Defending Childhood initiative demonstrated the importance of services for children exposed to violence, and the new definition will permit services addressing this. OVC, in response to several comments, has clarified in the definition that it encompasses harm to children, and is not meant to include adults who were victimized as children. This does not, however, preclude States from funding services to adults victimized as children; it merely means that States cannot count such services under the child-abuse priority category.
Section 94.103(a) sets forth the purpose of OVC's annual VOCA formula grants to the States. Several commenters asked that OVC re-draft the language to make it less confusing. OVC agrees and has done so. Commenters also asked that OVC add a statement about State discretion in determining sub-award recipients and amounts. OVC agrees and has added a sentence accordingly.
Section 94.103(b) sets forth the general rules for State eligibility certifications required by VOCA. OVC requires States to submit these certifications annually in their applications for funding. Reporting and technical requirements specific to a given fiscal year are set out in the annual program solicitation, or in supplemental OVC communications if time does not permit publication in the solicitation.
Section 94.103(c) clarifies that a SAA may award its VOCA funds to another organization to distribute—known as pass-through administration—and highlights SAA obligations with regard to use of administrative and training funds, monitoring, and reporting should this method be used. Several commenters supported pass-through administration, but advocated that pass-through entities should have specific expertise and experience related to the use of the funding (
A commenter was concerned that the proposed rule eliminated language in the guidelines about things that States should consider in strategic planning and asked that OVC add it back to the final rule. OVC agrees that the language is desirable and has added a new paragraph (d) with this language. Finally, several commenters expressed concern that OVC did not highlight the need for States to consider sustainability of services in strategic planning. OVC agrees that sustainability is an important consideration, and has added this to paragraph (d).
Section 94.103(g) sets forth that SAAs shall, upon request, and consistent with 2 CFR 200.336, permit OVC access to all records related to the use of VOCA funding. Access to SAAs' records is subject to the provision of the government-wide grant rules at 2 CFR 200.336, which permits access to the true names of crime victims only in extraordinary and rare circumstances, not for routine monitoring, and requires protection of sensitive information by all agencies involved if access is granted.
OVC moved the provisions of proposed section 94.104,
In the final rule, section 94.104,
Section 94.104(c) sets out the criteria by which SAAs must identify (for allocation of funds, reporting, and compliance purposes) services that assist previously underserved populations of victims of violent crime. SAAs must identify such a service for underserved victims of violent crime by the type of crime they experience (
A commenter asked that OVC add economic crimes, such as identity theft, to the list of examples of underserved victims. OVC notes that, for the underserved victim category, VOCA requires funding be allocated to projects serving “previously underserved populations of victims of
A commenter asked that OVC increase the percentage of funding required to be allocated to underserved populations. OVC has kept the mandated percentage at its present level, which balances the need for stability in state victim assistance funding with the need to ensure State victim assistance programs are responsive to emerging needs. The commenter also asked that OVC clarify that the exception allowing States to deviate from the underserved and priority percentages should be used sparingly. OVC notes that such requests are extremely rare (OVC has record of only one); thus, as a practical matter, an additional limitation of the exception is unnecessary. Other commenters asked OVC to require States to consult with sub-recipients prior to requesting approval to change allocations. As explained above, OVC anticipates such requests will be extremely rare, and declines to add such a requirement. The same commenter asked that OVC not tie exceptions for allocations for the sexual-assault priority category to overall crime rates, explaining that crime rates in a given time period are not necessarily reflective of victim service needs during the corresponding time period, as victims may not seek services immediately. OVC agrees, and the final rule allows other types of data to be used in supporting an exemption request.
A commenter asked that OVC require States to consult with rape crisis centers and sexual assault coalitions about the needs of sexual violence victims. OVC agrees that such consultation may be useful, but declines to include such a requirement in the rule, as OVC prefers to allow States to consult with a wide variety of stakeholders as appropriate.
Section 94.104(e) sets for the minimum requirements for SAAs sub-award process. It requires that SAAs have a documented methodology for selecting sub-recipients, follow DOJ grant rules regarding conflicts of interest, and encourages SAAs to fund eligible sub-recipients through a competitive process, which is described.
The proposed rule would have required competition of all sub-awards. Some commenters liked the proposed competition requirement, but others were opposed to it. Several commenters noted that requiring competition could increase administrative costs for SAAs, and could destabilize small victim assistance programs that would no longer be able to rely on consistent funding. Commenters noted that this may decrease the availability of services in rural areas where there are not many providers. A commenter from a SAA explained that it uses a conduit funding process in which it distributes funds to local victim witness units based on a formula, and these units then sub-award
OVC appreciates the thoughtful comments submitted in response to this proposal, and recognizes the importance of allowing States discretion in determining which organizations receive funds and in what amounts. Due to the potential administrative burden of requiring competition (particularly in jurisdictions with a limited number of SAA staff), OVC has not included such a requirement, though OVC does encourage SAAs to use a competitive process where feasible.
Many commenters expressed their opinion that VOCA funding should not be used as seed money for new organizations. OVC notes that any organization funded with VOCA Assistance funding—even through a competitive process—must meet the statutory program eligibility criteria, which requires either a record of effective victim services and financial support from non-VOCA funding, or substantial support from non-VOCA funding. One commenter asked that OVC require States to have a strategic state plan for allocating funding. The final rule encourages States to develop a funding strategy, and requires States to have a documented method of making funding decisions.
OVC renumbered this section from 94.106 in the proposed rule to 94.105 in the final rule. This section sets out SAA reporting requirements. The two key reports—subgrant award reports and performance reports—are the same reports required by the Guidelines, and the proposed rule. The rule does not specify time or manner in which these reports are to be submitted. The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-352 (Jan. 4, 2011), shifted many federal performance reporting requirements to a quarterly default, and OVC has changed the default performance reporting period in the rule accordingly. OVC will communicate the technical details of each year's reporting requirements to grantees via annual program solicitations and supplemental guidance.
A commenter noted that multiple budget revisions may occur during the grant period, and that the proposed requirement that SAAs update the subgrant award report within 30 days of such revisions would be burdensome. The commenter requested that OVC retain its current practice of allowing SAAs to submit a revised subgrant award report before project closeout. In response, OVC notes that the subgrant award report contains only minimal budget information, and the importance of having accurate and timely information on subawards outweighs the minimal additional burden of updating this report within the specified timeframe. Recent upgrades to OVC's performance reporting systems should reduce the burden on SAAs as subrecipients now have the ability to enter SAR data directly. The final rule keeps the thirty-day reporting requirement.
Another commenter suggested that OVC should require additional reporting, specifically on unmet needs of victims and the estimated costs of providing such services. OVC declines to add such a requirement to the rule. One commenter suggested that the final rule should allow flexibility for OVC to change the reporting period for the performance report; OVC agrees and has added this but keeps the Federal fiscal year as the default reporting period.
OVC renumbered this section from 94.107 in the proposed rule to 94.106 in the final. This section sets out the SAA's obligation to monitor its sub-awards. Many commenters complained that the proposed two-year on-site monitoring timeframe would be too burdensome and would be difficult for large jurisdictions to implement, and may lead to unintended consequences, such as SAAs' making fewer awards but of larger dollar amounts. Commenters pointed out that many states use risk assessment tools to determine priority for on-site monitoring, and some requested that OVC make the default rule three years instead of two years. Another commenter asked that OVC clarify that SAAs may request alternative monitoring plans as well as alternative monitoring frequency.
The final rule requires SAAs to develop and implement monitoring plans based on a default of regular desk monitoring, and biennial on-site monitoring, of all sub-awards. OVC also adds a requirement that such monitoring plans contain a risk assessment plan. The rule, consistent with 2 CFR 200.331(b), (d) and (e), continues to permit SAAs to develop and implement alternative monitoring plans (
OVC renumbered this section from 94.110 in the proposed rule to 94.107 in the final rule. This section is substantively unchanged from the proposed rule, except that OVC clarifies that SAAs must certify, pursuant to VOCA, at 42 U.S.C. 10604(h), in the notification of use of training/administrative funds, that they will not use VOCA funds to supplant State or local government funding. (The substantive rules regarding supplantation are set out in the next section, section 94.108.)
Overall, this section makes the program rules match the statutory provisions, which had changed after issuance of the Guidelines. VOCA limits administrative and training costs to five percent total for the combined costs of administration and training at the SAA level.
OVC renumbered this section from 94.111 in the proposed rule, to 94.108 in the final rule, and re-titled it to more accurately reflect what the section addresses. (Proposed section 94.108(a) is moved to section 94.121 in the final rule. Proposed section 94.108(b) through (e) is moved to section 94.112 in the final rule.) Section 94.108 sets out the rules for SAA use of VOCA funds for administrative costs and prohibits supplantation of State and local government funding with VOCA funding.
One commenter asked whether the baseline is to be established and documented on a one-time basis or each year of the grant. OVC currently requires SAAs to document a baseline each fiscal
OVC renumbered this section from 94.112 in the proposed rule, to 94.109 in the final rule. (Proposed section 94.109 is moved to section 94.117 in the final rule.) Section 94.109 sets out allowable administrative costs.
Several commenters asked OVC to add a category for “activities that impact the delivery and quality of services to crime victims throughout the state,” including training managers of victim service agencies, State-wide victim notification systems, and support for victims' rights compliance programs. OVC has added these activities. (OVC notes that direct service funding also may be used to support victim notification systems as well.) Direct service provider manager training is allowed, but categorized as a training expense under section 94.110. Several commenters expressed concern that allowing program evaluation would divert funding from direct services. OVC notes that the provision does not require evaluation, but merely allows it; furthermore, the total amount of funding for administrative costs is already capped by VOCA.
OVC renumbered this section from 94.113 in the proposed rule, to 94.110 in the final rule. (Proposed section 94.110 is moved to section 94.107 in the final rule.) This section sets out allowable uses of training funds.
A commenter asked OVC to clarify that the allowable training costs are not limited by the two listed examples. In response, OVC edited the text to clearly state that such costs “generally include, but are not limited to” the two listed examples; these are merely examples and not limitations. Commenters also asked OVC to clarify that SAAs may use training funds to train managers and board members of victim service agencies, as is permitted under the current Guidelines. OVC has added this to the final rule. Several commenters asked OVC to raise the percentage limits on administrative and training costs; as these are statutory requirements, however, OVC has no authority to do so.
Sections 94.111 through 94.115 of the final rule set out the requirements that an entity must meet to be an “eligible crime victim assistance program.” (Sections 94.111 through 94.114 of the proposed rule are moved to section 94.108, 94.109, 94.110, and 94.116, respectively, of the final rule. Section 94.115(a) through (d) of the proposed rule is moved to section 94.112 of the final rule; and 94.115(e) of the proposed rule is moved to section 94.117 of the final rule. The responses to comments addressing those provisions of the proposed rule are found in the discussions of the corresponding sections as set forth in the final rule.)
Several commenters suggested that OVC reorganize the rule such that the requirements for eligibility as a sub-recipient entity versus the requirements for operating a sub-recipient project, are clearly delineated. OVC agrees, and has created a new heading “Sub-Recipient Program Requirements” and moved the requirements in the proposed rule section 94.104
VOCA establishes the criteria for an “eligible crime victim assistance program,” and the final rule merely provides clarifying interpretation needed for practical implementation. Section 94.111 of the final rule sets out the basic principle that the SAA may fund only eligible programs, and contains a provision requiring compliance with additional SAA criteria and reporting requirements. Several commenters asked that OVC strengthen language (in proposed section 94.115(d)) requiring sub-recipients to follow reporting requirements of the SAA. OVC has done so in section 94.111.
This section sets out the general types of eligible entities, and special considerations for specific types of entities (moved from proposed section 94.108), as well as criteria for determining the organizational capacity of the entity's program.
In section 94.112(a)(3) of the final rule, OVC modifies the proposed provision (proposed section 94.108(e)) on victim assistance organizations located in an adjacent state to eliminate unnecessarily bureaucratic requirements in the Guidelines, while keeping the requirement to provide notice to the SAA where the organization is located, and encouraging co-ordination on various award oversight matters. Several commenters asked for clarification of the rules for SAA programs operating direct services projects with VOCA funds (proposed section 94.108(d)). In response, OVC has modified section 94.112(a)(4) of the final rule to clarify these points by eliminating confusing and redundant text that reiterated the statutory requirement that SAAs use no more than five percent of VOCA funds for administrative and training costs.
With regard to determining the organizational capacity of a sub-recipient, under section 94.112(b) of the final rule, the SAA determines what constitutes “a record of effective services to victims of crime,” and this may vary depending on the State, and community served, and the entity providing services. Though this provision is reworded slightly for clarity, OVC leaves unchanged in the final rule the non-exclusive list of considerations that SAAs may take into account when making this determination. The SAA should be able to articulate the basis for its determination, should OVC request it. SAAs may also consider additional factors, such as the type of victim the entity's services address, the type of services provided, best practices within that service field, and the characteristics of the entity (
Commenters urged OVC to make it clear that the mandated use-of-volunteers provision, at section 94.115(a) of the proposed rule, applies as an eligibility requirement for sub-recipient organizations (programs), not as a requirement for individual projects. OVC agrees with the commenters that the use-of-volunteers provision applies to programs, not individual projects, and has thus placed the final rule provision addressing waiver of this
Commenters asked that OVC clarify proposed section 94.115(c), to state that a sub-recipient may comply with the VOCA requirement to assist victims in applying for compensation by providing referrals. OVC agrees and has made this clarification in section 94.113(d) of the final rule.
A commenter asked that OVC add additional requirements to the VOCA mandate that sub-recipients assist victims in applying for victim compensation by requiring that sub-recipients also assist victims in understanding their State and federal rights, how to assert those rights, and what to do if their rights are not considered or denied. OVC has not added such a mandate, as these are not eligibility criteria mandated by VOCA, but OVC does encourage all victim assistance organizations to assist victims in understanding their rights, or providing referrals to organizations that can do so, where appropriate. A commenter asked that OVC clarify that victim assistance programs should also assist victims of federal crime in applying for compensation. OVC agrees, and has added language accordingly.
OVC received several comments on proposed section 94.104(h) (now section 94.114 of the final rule), which stated “The VOCA non-discrimination provisions specified at 42 U.S.C. 10604(e) shall be implemented in accordance with 28 CFR part 42, and guidance from the Office for Civil Rights within the Office of Justice Programs.” Several commenters advocated that OVC add explicit regulatory language prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to the final rule and offered several reasons why such a provision would benefit victims. OVC acknowledges that people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning/queer (“LGBTQ”) suffer disproportionately from violence and its effects, and often do not have access to informed services to help them recover in the aftermath of a crime. However, because OVC did not include in the proposed rule a definition that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation, and because OVC anticipates that the law will continue to evolve on this issue, OVC declines to include such language at this time. OVC will continue to monitor legal developments in this area. With respect to gender identity, the Department of Justice has concluded that statutory prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sex encompass discrimination based on gender identity in other contexts. See,
Several commenters noted that OVC had not included a provision regarding confidentiality in the proposed rule, and suggested that OVC add such a provision. The commenters noted that the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act contained a provision, 42 U.S.C. 13935(b)(2), that many VOCA-funded organizations would have to comply with as a condition of their VAWA funding, and suggested that OVC model its provision on that. OVC agrees and has done this in section 94.115 of the final rule.
OVC renumbered section 94.114 of the proposed rule as section 94.116 of the final rule, under the heading “Sub-Recipient Project Requirements” instead of “Sub-Recipient Program Requirements.” (Section 94.116 of the proposed rule is moved to section 94.118 of the final rule.) This section sets forth a brief statement of the purpose of VOCA sub-awards. The proposed provision was confusing, and OVC has attempted to draft the statement more clearly in the final rule.
Additionally, the requirement in the Guidelines (sec. IV.B.11) that sub-recipients must provide services to victims of federal crimes on the same basis as to victims of crimes under State or local law is added to the final rule, as it was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule but is a long-standing principle applicable to federal victim assistance funding. The final rule also sets forth OVC's policy clarification that victim eligibility for direct services under the VOCA Assistance Program is not dependent on the victim's immigration status. This principle derives from the nature of services provided by most VOCA-funded victim service providers in light of the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and was communicated to all VOCA Assistance (and Compensation) SAAs in a June 28, 2010, OVC Director Memorandum.
This section sets forth the rules for VOCA-funded projects that will charge for victim services. (Section 94.117 of the proposed rule is moved to section 94.119 of the final rule.) OVC has long held that VOCA-funded victim services should be free of charge for victims where possible, although it recognizes that in some situations a service provider may be justified in charging for services or otherwise generating program income.
The provisions in section 94.117 of the final rule are adapted from sections 94.115(e) and 94.109 of the proposed rule. A commenter suggested that this section be moved to a new division setting out VOCA project requirements; OVC has done this. Commenters also suggested that OVC re-word the provision to be more direct. OVC has done this, as well. OVC also simplified the provision to state that program income must be used consistently with Federal grant rules and the DOJ Grants Financial Guide (available on the Office of Justice Programs' Web site, at
A commenter requested that OVC add a requirement that sub-recipients provide proof or certification of compliance with the program income requirements when seeking reimbursement from State compensation programs. OVC declines to add such a requirement to this rule, as this type of requirement is more appropriately created in the application requirements and collateral source verification procedures for victim compensation programs, or as an arrangement among State agencies.
This section is renumbered from 94.116 in the proposed rule to 94.118 in the final rule, and moved under the “Sub-recipient Project Requirements” heading, as commenters correctly pointed out that match is applicable to the VOCA project, not the program. (Section 94.118 of the proposed rule is moved to section 94.120 of the final rule.)
Some commenters suggested eliminating match all together, while others suggested various different levels for match. OVC has kept a match
Some commenters recommended that OVC consider allowing match at the State level, rather than on a sub-recipient by sub-recipient basis, as this would bring VOCA grant rules into harmony with match requirements under other programs (
A commenter asked that OVC modify the proposed requirement that match be used for the same uses and timing as the project's VOCA funding. OVC declines to do so, as this rule is long-standing and consistent with similar rules that apply to other OVC and federal awards. OVC does note, however, that non-cash contributions—for example, professional services—may be counted as match.
Commenters also questioned why Native American and Alaskan Native sub-recipients and projects on tribal lands, as well as projects in U.S. territories and possessions (excluding Puerto Rico), are not required to provide match. Some commenters asked OVC to keep the 5% match for tribes, while other commenters asked that OVC keep the rule as proposed. OVC has found that these communities often lack victim services, have great victim service needs, and are more often likely to have difficulty meeting match requirements. Match serves the purpose of encouraging collaboration among service providers, and creating a local stake in project outcomes, but it also can present a barrier to applying for VOCA assistance funding in tribal and territorial communities that have relatively few victim service organizations, and have not traditionally been supported by resources available to organizations operating in states. Not requiring match as a default for such communities is designed to streamline application requirements in these areas where, in OVC's experience, the benefits of a match requirement are outweighed by its burdens. OVC agrees that other areas of the country may face similar circumstances, and, therefore, the final rule provides that OVC will consider exceptions to match upon SAA request, and sets forth generally how OVC will evaluate such requests.
This section is renumbered from 94.117 in the proposed rule to 94.119 in the final rule. (Section 94.119 of the proposed rule is moved to section 94.121 of the final rule.) This section sets forth allowable direct service costs for VOCA projects. Most of these allowable costs (and the parameters under which the direct services may be provided) are essentially the same as those in the existing Guidelines and in the proposed rule, but there are some differences, which are discussed below.
The commenter also asked that OVC clarify that all services provided by VOCA-funded projects are voluntary and should not be contingent upon the client participating in certain support services. OVC is unclear what support services the commenter refers to and so declines to make a change to the rule based on this comment but notes that there are existing rules in place (
Many of the comments opined that the proposed provision on allowable legal assistance was either too broad or too narrow in what it allowed. One commenter asked that OVC state expressly that legal services for divorce, child support, criminal defense, and tort lawsuits are not appropriate uses of VOCA funding. Other commenters asked that OVC clarify that criminal defense services may be appropriate where it is directly related to intimate partner violence.
OVC has clarified the rule to state expressly which costs are unallowable—those for criminal defense and tort lawsuits. This clarification makes the program consistent with the OVW Legal Assistance for Victims program (many organizations receive both OVC and OVW funding), which also does not fund criminal defense or tort lawsuits, and also creates a bright-line rule that is more easily administered. OVC notes that some jurisdictions allow victims to file a motion to vacate and/or expunge certain convictions based on their status of being victims. OVC has clarified that such services are allowable with VOCA
Many commenters wanted OVC to expand its examples of allowable legal assistance costs in the proposed rule to include specific examples relevant to the organization commenting. On the other hand, some commenters expressed concern that some organizations may misinterpret the examples in the proposed rule as limits. OVC has carefully considered these comments and, in the final rule, has opted to move most of the examples into the preamble of the rule. OVC will issue supplementary guidance as may be needed to further clarify the applicability of the rule in specific factual scenarios.
The following are examples (which are merely illustrative, and not meant to be a comprehensive listing) of some circumstances where civil legal services may be appropriate: Proceedings for protective/restraining orders or campus administrative protection/stay-away orders; family, custody, contract, housing, and dependency matters, particularly for victims of intimate partner violence, child abuse, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking; immigration assistance for victims of human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence; intervention with creditors, law enforcement (
The final rule does not include the provision in proposed section 94.117(a)(8)(iv), which would have disallowed VOCA funding used to supplant other funding available for forensic interviews, including criminal justice funding. OVC believes that providing States additional flexibility to meet this important victim need (which, if unsupported, may lead to re-traumatization of the victim) outweighs potential concerns that victim service funding will supplant law enforcement funding for this activity.
A commenter cautioned that forensic interviews should be conducted by child advocacy center forensic interviewers who have training and adhere to the National Child Advocacy Center guidelines. OVC believes this comment is well intentioned, but notes that not all victims needing specialized forensic interviews are children—for example, some victims are adults with disabilities. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and some States use alternative standards. Therefore, OVC defers to SAAs to determine what organizations appropriately may provide this service.
In this final rule, OVC simply removes the prohibition on perpetrator rehabilitation and counseling, as the prohibition unnecessarily prevents States and communities from fully leveraging all available resources to provide services to these victims, who have been shown to have a great need for such services. States and VOCA-funded sub-recipients may set eligibility criteria for their victim service projects, and thereby determine, in accordance with VOCA and this rule, whether and how such victims might be served by VOCA-funded projects. Correspondingly, OVC does not include any provision under allowable costs addressing services to incarcerated victims, as the costs permitted for direct services to incarcerated victims are the same as those permitted for such services to any crime victim.
OVC received a wide range of comments on this provision. Many were supportive of the removal of the prohibition on providing services to incarcerated victims. Some commenters wanted OVC to affirmatively encourage States to permit sub-grantees to use VOCA funding for such services. Some commenters expressed the sentiment that the prison system should be responsible for addressing victim services for incarcerated persons, in the same way that it provides medical care and other services. OVC agrees that the government agencies that oversee detention/correctional facilities have responsibilities for the care of victims within their custody, but believes that prohibiting VOCA-funded organizations from providing services to incarcerated victims deprives such victims of, and communities of, experienced victim service resources. Indeed, such organizations are often the only organizations able to provide such services in some communities.
A commenter noted that the restriction causes agencies routinely to deny services to incarcerated victims but provides the exact same services for the exact same crime to those assaulted just outside the facility. OVC recognizes that victim service resources are finite, but believes that States are best positioned to make resource allocation decisions. Removing the prohibition on serving incarcerated victims will allow States to serve all victims better and more efficiently leverage the expertise of victim service organizations.
Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule may trigger the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) provision requiring a reduction or reallocation of federal funding available to a State for “prison purposes” if the State fails to certify compliance with the Department's National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape.
The final rule, in response to these concerns, does not require that services to incarcerated victims must be provided, or how such services should be provided, but merely removes the express prohibition on such services that existed in the Guidelines. As noted in section 94.103 of the final rule, SAAs have sole discretion to determine what organizations will receive funds, and in what amounts, subject to the minimum requirements of this final rule and VOCA. Nothing in VOCA, or this final rule, allows VOCA funding to be diverted to “prison purposes;” rather, VOCA funding is expressly limited by statute to victim services and associated activities. A letter issued to State governors by OVC and OVW on February 11, 2014, did not list any VOCA programs as being available for prison purposes.
For example, shelters for victims of domestic violence or human trafficking would be allowable uses of VOCA funds. Similarly, it would be allowable in the case of sexual assault, where a victim needs to move. To the extent SAAs choose to permit VOCA funds to be used for transitional housing purposes, OVC anticipates that these agencies would focus on those victims with the most need.
Some commenters liked the proposed rules on transitional housing and relocation, while others opposed them. A commenter noted that VOCA-funded programs may not have the experience or resources to monitor housing programs. OVC recognizes that some SAAs will not have such experience, but the rule merely
One commenter wanted OVC to clarify that state limits on types of victims eligible for transitional housing assistance must not violate VOCA non-discrimination provisions. OVC agrees that States may not violate the non-discrimination provision when prescribing limits on allowable costs for transitional housing. The commenter also requested that OVC define “dependent child” to include dependents of all LGBTQ survivors. OVC strongly agrees that dependents of LGBTQ victims should be eligible for such assistance to the same extent as dependents of non-LGBTQ victims, if such assistance is provided. The VOCA rule establishes the basic rules for State administration of VOCA funds, however, and prescribing detailed rules for eligibility for particular types of assistance projects, as the commenter suggests, is beyond the scope of the rule.
A commenter suggested that OVC add language setting out factors that States should consider when setting limits on transitional housing expenses. OVC declines to include these in the rule, but notes that States may choose to consider the factors mentioned, which include the availability of affordable alternative and rental housing; other sources of support and housing for the victim, such as Section 8 housing vouchers in the immediate locale of the victim; and waiting lists for Section 8 housing in the area.
A commenter suggested that OVC use OVW's transitional housing program as a model. OVC is not setting detailed parameters for transitional housing costs in this rule. To the extent they find the OVW model is useful, the final rule allows States to follow that model.
A commenter requested that OVC advise States to use their VOCA Compensation funds to meet transitional housing needs, before accessing VOCA Assistance funding for this purpose. OVC notes that it does not anticipate States using VOCA Assistance funding to create new programs for transitional housing, though this would be permissible. Instead, OVC anticipates that States may allow VOCA-funded service providers to expand the range of services offered to victims, and supported by the VOCA subaward, to include transitional housing. OVC further notes that each State Compensation program determines coverage of crimes and expenses for its jurisdiction. Therefore, some State Compensation programs may not cover transitional housing needs. OVC wishes to allow States the flexibility to access either VOCA Assistance or Compensation funding for transitional housing related needs, as would best serve victims and is permissible in their jurisdictions, and therefore declines to recommend that States access VOCA Compensation funds prior to accessing VOCA Assistance funds.
Additionally, the final rule omits the reference in the proposed rule to providing “mortgage assistance”, due to the complicated nature of administering such assistance. Thus, under the final rule, while relocation expenses are allowable, mortgage expenses are not allowable.
OVC renumbered this section from 94.118 in the proposed rule to 94.120 in the final rule, setting forth allowable activities that support direct services.
One commenter asked (with regard to co-ordination activities, automated systems and technology, and volunteer trainings) whether these are allowable as stand-alone projects that may be funded by a State, or whether they must be part of a direct service project. OVC intends that these may be funded by a State in either manner. If they are funded as stand-alone activities, however, they should be activities that leverage resources for direct victim services (
A commenter requested that OVC add coalitions to support and assist victims to the list of allowable activities, and OVC has done this.
The final rule provides that a victim's opportunity to withdraw must be inherent in any restorative justice effort supported by program funds, whereas the Guidelines had merely included this as one of several criteria that SAAs should consider when deciding whether to fund such efforts. Lastly, the Guidelines included as another criteria the benefit or therapeutic value to the victim, while the final rule requires that SAAs also consider the costs in relation to the benefit or therapeutic value to the victim, as restorative justice efforts can be expensive and those costs may not be justified under certain circumstances.
Section 94.121 of the final rule sets out allowable sub-recipient administrative costs. These are substantively the same as those in the existing Guidelines, and as in proposed section 94.119.
A commenter noted that there was a discrepancy in the proposed rule, in that training costs were allowed for non-VOCA-funded service providers, but travel costs to attend trainings were
Several commenters suggested that evaluation costs in section 94.121(j) should be capped at a percentage of the grant. OVC believes that evaluation is an important part of improving victim services by developing data-driven improvements to programs and does not cap evaluation costs in the rule. OVC does note that the rule does not prevent SAAs from capping such costs (on a State-wide or project-by-project basis, as appropriate), or limiting such costs to amounts that are reasonable given State goals and funding constraints.
OVC has renumbered proposed 94.120 as section 94.122 of the final rule, setting forth expressly unallowable project costs. Most of these provisions are the same as those in the existing Guidelines, and the proposed rule, with the following exceptions:
In the Guidelines, and the proposed rule at 94.120(f), liability insurance on buildings, and body guards (which OVC understands to mean security guards, as it is listed as a capital expense), were not allowable. OVC removes these from the list of unallowable costs in the final rule, as these costs may be allowable under the revised government-wide grant rules in 2 CFR part 200, if appropriately allocated to an award either directly or indirectly.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Office for Victims of Crime has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The OVC Victim Assistance Program distributes funding to States pursuant to the VOCA formula, a statutory provision, which is not affected by this regulation. The VOCA formula sets out the allocation of grant funds among States, and designates the States that will receive grant funds—the regulation alters neither the allocation of Federal funding, nor the designation of which States will receive annual funding pursuant to that allocation. Moreover, VOCA affords substantial latitude to the States in determining where to allocate the formula funding within each jurisdiction. This rule, to the extent that it creates certain set asides and permissible areas of emphasis for State victim assistance programs, only applies to federally provided funding. As a rule governing a Federal grant program to States and major U.S. territories, the only economic impact on small entities is that of potential financial assistance, as the rule would not apply to any entity that was not a recipient of VOCA funding under this program. This regulation, therefore, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.
The Office of Justice Programs has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
The rule merely clarifies and updates the existing Guidelines, but does not alter the existing program structure at all. Updating the existing Guidelines to clearly and accurately reflect the statutory parameters will facilitate State compliance with VOCA requirements, and thus avoid potentially costly non-compliance findings. The rule makes some substantive changes to the existing Guidelines, but most of these would be of a permissive, not restrictive or mandatory, nature. Some changes, like allowing more flexibility to co-ordinate and leverage community resources, and adopt alternative monitoring strategies, would impose no costs but will potentially allow States to use existing funding more efficiently. Other changes that allow States to allocate funding to services not presently allowable could change the allocation of VOCA funding among victim services provided by sub-recipient organizations, and among victim service organizations. Such reallocations of funding, however, are not mandated and each State would make the ultimate decision with regard to whether to change its current funding allocations, if it chooses to do so at all. This is not a change from the present discretion that States have to allocate funding according to State priorities. Any potential reallocations would be relatively minor (even when taken in aggregate across States) in comparison to the overall mix of allowable victim services, and thus they are unlikely to create new costs or significant fund transfers. In any event, the benefits of additional services for underserved and un-served victims are significant.
The provision allowing alternative risk-based monitoring procedures imposes no new costs on States that choose to retain their existing procedures, but will allow States that wish to implement more cost effective alternatives to do so.
The elimination of match for American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and projects on tribal lands will permit victim service organizations in these communities, many of which do not have the resources to provide matching funds, the ability to more easily seek VOCA funding for victim services. This will benefit victims in these communities, many of whom are underserved. This change is unlikely to impose new costs on States, as there is no requirement that the administering agencies fund American Indian or Alaskan Native tribes or organizations at a particular level, and the amount of funding allocated to these organizations historically is a very small percentage of overall VOCA funding.
All of the changes to the provisions governing allowable and unallowable costs are in the nature of granting States
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as the rule only affects the eligibility for, and use of, federal funding under this program. The rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or preempt any State laws. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States, except as the same may be contained within subpart B of part 94 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The VOCA Victim Assistance Program is a formula grant program that provides funds to States to provide financial support to eligible crime victim assistance programs. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign- based companies in domestic and export markets.
This rule does not propose any new, or changes to existing, “collection[s] of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
OVC sets forth a requirement, in section 94.105 of the final rule that SAAs update their subgrant award report information within 30 days of a change in such information. This requirement does not change the overall burden of the subgrant award report, which is estimated to take approximately three minutes to complete. It merely provides a reasonable timeframe for updating information that changes during a grant period. As the report contains only high level summary data, not detailed budget data, OVC estimates that the burden of requiring updates of this report throughout the grant period will be minimal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Formula grant program, Victim assistance.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 28, part 94, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 10603, 10603c, 10604(a), 10605.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
As used in this subpart:
(1) Respond to the emotional, psychological, or physical needs of crime victims;
(2) Assist victims to stabilize their lives after victimization;
(3) Assist victims to understand and participate in the criminal justice system; or
(4) Restore a measure of security and safety for the victim.
(a)
(b)
(1) Priority will be given to programs providing assistance to victims of sexual assault, spousal abuse, or child abuse;
(2) Funds will be made available to programs serving underserved victims;
(3) VOCA funds awarded to the State, and by the State to eligible crime victim assistance programs, will not be used to supplant State and local government funds otherwise available for crime victim assistance.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(1) Sexual assault,
(2) Spousal abuse and
(3) Child abuse.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) SAAs are encouraged to award funds through a competitive process, when feasible. Typically, such a process entails an open solicitation of applications and a documented determination, based on objective criteria set in advance by the SAA (or pass-through entity, as applicable).
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Promptly notify OVC of any formal allegation or finding of fraud, waste, abuse, or similar misconduct involving VOCA funds;
(2) Promptly refer any credible evidence of such misconduct to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General; and
(3) Apprise OVC, in timely fashion, of the status of any on-going investigations
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1) Establish and document a baseline level of non-VOCA funding required to administer the State victim assistance program, based on SAA expenditures for administrative costs during that fiscal year and the previous fiscal year, prior to expending VOCA funds for administration; and
(2) Submit the certification required by 42 U.S.C. 10604(h), which, as of July 8, 2016, requires an SAA to certify here that VOCA funds will not be used to supplant State funds, but will be used to increase the amount of such funds that would, in the absence of VOCA
(a) Funds for administration may be used only for costs directly associated with administering a State's victim assistance program. Where allowable administrative costs are allocable to both the crime victim assistance program and another State program, the VOCA grant may be charged no more than its proportionate share of such costs. SAAs may charge a federally-approved indirect cost rate to the VOCA grant, provided that the total amount charged does not exceed the amount prescribed by VOCA for training and administration.
(b) Costs directly associated with administering a State victim assistance program generally include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
VOCA funds may be used only for training activities that occur within the award period, and all funds for training must be obligated prior to the end of such period. Allowable training costs generally include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Statewide/regional training of personnel providing direct assistance and allied professionals, including VOCA funded and non-VOCA funded personnel, as well as managers and Board members of victim service agencies; and
(b) Training academies for victim assistance.
SAAs may award VOCA funds only to crime victim assistance programs that meet the requirements of VOCA, at 42 U.S.C. 10603(b)(1), and this subpart. Each such program shall abide by any additional criteria or reporting requirements established by the SAA.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The VOCA non-discrimination provisions specified at 42 U.S.C. 10604(e) shall be implemented in accordance with 28 CFR part 42.
(b) In complying with VOCA, at 42 U.S.C. 10604(e), as implemented by 28 CFR part 42, SAAs and sub-recipients shall comply with such guidance as may be issued from time to time by the Office for Civil Rights within the Office of Justice Programs.
(a)
(1) Any personally identifying information or individual information collected in connection with VOCA-funded services requested, utilized, or denied, regardless of whether such information has been encoded, encrypted, hashed, or otherwise protected; or
(2) Individual client information, without the informed, written, reasonably time-limited consent of the person about whom information is sought, except that consent for release may not be given by the abuser of a minor, incapacitated person, or the abuser of the other parent of the minor. If a minor or a person with a legally appointed guardian is permitted by law to receive services without a parent's (or the guardian's) consent, the minor or person with a guardian may consent to release of information without additional consent from the parent or guardian.
(b)
(c)
(1) Non-personally identifying data in the aggregate regarding services to their clients and non-personally identifying demographic information in order to comply with reporting, evaluation, or data collection requirements;
(2) Court-generated information and law-enforcement-generated information contained in secure governmental registries for protection order enforcement purposes; and
(3) Law enforcement- and prosecution-generated information necessary for law enforcement and prosecution purposes.
(d)
(1) A crime victim be required to provide a consent to release personally identifying information as a condition of eligibility for VOCA-funded services;
(2) Any personally identifying information be shared in order to comply with reporting, evaluation, or data-collection requirements of any program;
(e)
VOCA funds shall be available to sub-recipients only to provide direct services and supporting and administrative activities as set out in this subpart. SAAs shall ensure that VOCA sub-recipients obligate and expend funds in accordance with VOCA and this subpart. Sub-recipients must provide services to victims of federal crimes on the same basis as to victims of crimes under State or local law. Sub-recipients may provide direct services regardless of a victim's participation in the criminal justice process. Victim eligibility under this program for direct services is not dependent on the victim's immigration status.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) Sub-recipients that are federally-recognized American Indian or Alaska Native tribes, or projects that operate on tribal lands;
(2) Sub-recipients that are territories or possessions of the United States (except for the Commonwealth of Puerto
(3) Sub-recipients other than those described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, that have applied (through their SAAs) for, and been granted, a full or partial waiver from the Director. Waiver requests must be supported by the SAA and justified in writing. Waivers are entirely at the Director's discretion, but the Director typically considers factors such as local resources, annual budget changes, past ability to provide match, and whether the funding is for new or additional activities requiring additional match versus continuing activities where match is already provided.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Direct services for which VOCA funds may be used include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)
(1) Crisis intervention services;
(2) Accompanying victims to hospitals for medical examinations;
(3) Hotline counseling;
(4) Safety planning;
(5) Emergency food, shelter, clothing, and transportation;
(6) Short-term (up to 45 days) in-home care and supervision services for children and adults who remain in their own homes when the offender/caregiver is removed;
(7) Short-term (up to 45 days) nursing-home, adult foster care, or group-home placement for adults for whom no other safe, short-term residence is available;
(8) Window, door, or lock replacement or repair, and other repairs necessary to ensure a victim's safety;
(9) Costs of the following, on an emergency basis (
(10) Emergency legal assistance, such as for filing for restraining or protective orders, and obtaining emergency custody orders and visitation rights;
(b)
(1) Working with a victim to assess the impact of the crime;
(2) Identification of victim's needs;
(3) Case management;
(4) Management of practical problems created by the victimization;
(5) Identification of resources available to the victim;
(6) Provision of information, referrals, advocacy, and follow-up contact for continued services, as needed; and
(7) Traditional, cultural, and/or alternative therapy/healing (
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Advocacy on behalf of a victim;
(2) Accompanying a victim to offices and court;
(3) Transportation, meals, and lodging to allow a victim who is not a witness to participate in a proceeding;
(4) Interpreting for a non-witness victim who is deaf or hard of hearing, or with limited English proficiency;
(5) Providing child care and respite care to enable a victim who is a caregiver to attend activities related to the proceeding;
(6) Notification to victims regarding key proceeding dates (
(7) Assistance with Victim Impact Statements;
(8) Assistance in recovering property that was retained as evidence; and
(9) Assistance with restitution advocacy on behalf of crime victims.
(f)
(1) Those (other than criminal defense) that help victims assert their rights as victims in a criminal proceeding directly related to the victimization, or otherwise protect their safety, privacy, or other interests as victims in such a proceeding;
(2) Motions to vacate or expunge a conviction, or similar actions, where the jurisdiction permits such a legal action based on a person's being a crime victim; and
(3) Those actions (other than tort actions) that, in the civil context, are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the victimization;
(g)
(h)
(1) Results of the interview will be used not only for law enforcement and prosecution purposes, but also for identification of needs such as social services, personal advocacy, case management, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services;
(2) Interviews are conducted in the context of a multi-disciplinary investigation and diagnostic team, or in a specialized setting such as a child advocacy center; and
(3) The interviewer is trained to conduct forensic interviews appropriate to the developmental age and abilities of children, or the developmental, cognitive, and physical or communication disabilities presented by adults.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
Supporting activities for which VOCA funds may be used include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Coordination
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Whether such procurement will enhance direct services;
(2) How any acquisition will be integrated into and/or enhance the program's current system;
(3) The cost of installation;
(4) The cost of training staff to use the automated systems and technology;
(5) The ongoing operational costs, such as maintenance agreements, supplies; and
(6) How additional costs relating to any acquisition will be supported;
(f)
(g)
(1) The safety and security of the victim;
(2) The cost versus the benefit or therapeutic value to the victim;
(3) The procedures for ensuring that participation of the victim and offenders are voluntary and that the nature of the meeting is clear;
(4) The provision of appropriate support and accompaniment for the victim;
(5) Appropriate debriefing opportunities for the victim after the meeting; and
(6) The credentials of the facilitators.
Administrative costs for which VOCA funds may be used by sub-recipients include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Supplies;
(2) Equipment use fees;
(3) Property insurance;
(4) Printing, photocopying, and postage;
(5) Courier service;
(6) Brochures that describe available services;
(7) Books and other victim-related materials;
(8) Computer backup files/tapes and storage;
(9) Security systems;
(10) Design and maintenance of Web sites and social media; and
(11) Essential communication services, such as web hosts and mobile device services.
(g)
(1) Completing VOCA-required time and attendance sheets and programmatic documentation, reports, and statistics;
(2) Collecting and maintaining crime victims' records;
(3) Conducting victim satisfaction surveys and needs assessments to improve victim services delivery in the project; and
(4) Funding the prorated share of audit costs.
(h)
(i)
(j)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, no VOCA funds may be used to fund or support the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Interim final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
This rule is effective on August 1, 2016. Comments will be accepted until September 6, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Adrienne Alsop, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, South Interior Building MS-203, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 208-2818.
Section 518 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1268, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assess civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for violations of SMCRA. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) regulations implementing the CMP provisions of section 518 are located in 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846. We are adjusting CMPs in four sections—30 CFR 723.14, 724.14, 845.14, and 846.14.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74) (“the Act”) into law. The Act requires that Federal agencies promulgate rules to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) to account for inflation. The Act requires agencies to enact an initial “catch-up” adjustment by August 1, 2016. The Act also authorizes agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments to civil monetary penalties to account for inflation. These adjustments are aimed at maintaining the deterrent effect of civil penalties and furthering the policy goals of the statutes which authorize them.
Pursuant to SMCRA, this rule adjusts the following civil penalties:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustment.
The OMB guidance defines “civil monetary penalty” as “any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding.” It further instructs that a civil monetary penalty “does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory reviews.” The guidance also specifies that agencies should calculate the catch-up adjustment by determining the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the calendar year of the previous adjustment (or in the year of establishment, if no adjustment has been made) and the October 2015 CPI-U. OSMRE used this guidance to identify applicable civil monetary penalties and calculate the required catch-up adjustments.
Generally, OSMRE assigns points to a violation as described in 30 CFR 723.13 and 845.13. The CMP owed is based on the number of points received, ranging from one point to seventy points. For 2016, the Act requires that OSMRE adjust the civil penalty amounts for violations of SMCRA and provides the adjustment timing. The Act instructs OSMRE to use the maximum civil penalty amount as last adjusted by a provision of law other than the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Public Law 104-410) (FCPIA of 1990) when calculating the 2016 civil penalty adjustment. The maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of SMCRA have not been adjusted by a provision of law other than the FCPIA of 1990 since the penalties were established in SMCRA in 1977. Because the penalties were first published in the
OSMRE directly regulates surface coal mining and reclamation activities within a State or on tribal lands if the
State regulatory programs are not required to mirror all of the penalty provisions of our regulations.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this 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 rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, to the extent permitted by statute.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1 (b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to publish interim final rules by July 1, 2016, with an effective date for the adjusted penalties no later than August 1, 2016. To comply with the Act, we are issuing these regulations as an interim final rule and are requesting comments post-promulgation. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
OSMRE finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. It would not be practicable to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Also, OSMRE is promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish an interim final rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. OSMRE has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for pre-promulgation public comment on this rule. Thus, OSMRE finds pre-promulgation notice and public comment to be impracticable and unnecessary.
Also, OSMRE finds that there is good cause for publishing this rule less than thirty days before its effective date, since the Act requires agencies to publish interim final rules with an effective date no later than August 1, 2016. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). OSMRE has no discretion to provide for an effective date that is later than August 1, 2016.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Administrative practice and procedure, Law enforcement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Surface mining, Underground mining.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846 as set forth below.
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) In addition to the civil penalty provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, whenever a violation contained in a notice of violation or cessation order has not been abated within the abatement period set in the notice or order or as subsequently extended pursuant to section 521(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 1271(a), a civil penalty of not less than $2,372 will be assessed for each day during which such failure to abate continues, except that:
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) The penalty will not exceed $17,395 for each violation. * * *
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) In addition to the civil penalty provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, whenever a violation contained in a notice of violation or cessation order has not been abated within the abatement period set in the notice or order or as subsequently extended pursuant to section 521(a) of the Act, a civil penalty of not less than $2,372 will be assessed for each day during which such failure to abate continues, except that:
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) The penalty will not exceed $17,395 for each violation. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North Devon Bridge across the Housatonic River, mile 3.9, at Stratford, Connecticut. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform timber ties replacement and steel repairs at the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on September 6, 2016 to 8 a.m. on September 19, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0633] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email
The Metro-North Devon Bridge, mile 3.9, across the Housatonic River, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.207(b).
The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels.
The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform timber ties replacement and steel repairs at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North Devon Bridge will operate according to the schedule below:
a. From 8 a.m. on September 6, 2016 through 4 a.m. on September 9, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
b. From 4 a.m. on September 9, 2016 through 8 a.m. on September 12, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
c. From 8 a.m. on September 12, 2016 through 4 a.m. on September 16, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
d. From 4 a.m. on September 16, 2016 through 8 a.m. on September 19, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New Hampshire regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also updating the classification for two of New Hampshire's air quality control regions for sulfur dioxide based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state. Last, we are conditionally approving certain elements of New Hampshire's submittal relating to prevention of significant deterioration requirements.
The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
This final rule is effective on August 8, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Donald Dahl, (617) 918-1657, or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for the 1-hour primary SO
On September 13, 2013, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted a SIP revision addressing infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. On July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42446), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of New Hampshire proposing approval of New Hampshire's submittal. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the following infrastructure elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (enforcement and minor new source review), (D)(i)(II) (Visibility Protection), (D)(ii) (International Pollution Abatement), (E)(i) and (ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation, public notification, and visibility protection), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. EPA also proposed to approve the PSD program relating to infrastructure elements (C)(ii), D(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii), except to conditionally approve the aspect of the PSD program relating to notification to neighboring states. Within the same NPR, EPA also proposed taking similar action on New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide standards. EPA has already finalized its action on the infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide standards (80 FR 78139, December 16, 2015).
In New Hampshire's September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP for the SO
The rationale supporting EPA's proposed rulemaking action, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the published NPR. The NPR is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
EPA received comments from the Sierra Club on the August 17, 2015 proposed rulemaking action on New Hampshire's 2010 SO
The Commenter states the main objective of the infrastructure SIP process “is to ensure that all areas of the country meet the NAAQS” and states that nonattainment areas are addressed through “nonattainment SIPs.” The Commenter asserts the NAAQS “are the foundation upon which air emissions limitations and standards for the entire country are set,” including specific emission limitations for most large stationary sources, such as coal-fired power plants. The Commenter discusses the CAA's framework whereby states have primary responsibility to assure air quality within the state, which the states carry out through SIPs such as infrastructure SIPs required by section 110(a)(2). The Commenter also states that on its face the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs “to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.” In support, the Commenter quotes the language in section 110(a)(1), which requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA, which the Commenter claims includes attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The Commenter also notes the use of the word “attain” in section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) and suggests this is further evidence that the emission limits provided for in section 110(a)(2)(A) must ensure attainment of the NAAQS.
EPA interprets infrastructure SIPs as more general planning SIPs, consistent with the CAA as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in “air quality control regions” (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for “attainment” of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include “emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].”
In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (
Thus, section 110 of the CAA is only one provision of the complicated overall structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and must be interpreted in the context of that structure and the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for “implementation, maintenance and enforcement” to mean that the SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program. EPA has interpreted the requirement for emission limitations in section 110 to mean that a state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA has stated in the 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (“2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance”), which specifically provides guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO
In
The decision in
At issue in
Two of the other cases the Commenter cites,
EPA does not believe any of these court decisions addressed required measures for infrastructure SIPs and believes nothing in the opinions addressed whether infrastructure SIPs need to contain measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements interpreting the provisions of new “Part D” of the CAA, it is clear the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 was
The Commenter contends that the New Hampshire 2010 SO
The requirements for emission reduction measures for an area designated nonattainment for the 2010 primary SO
For the area designated nonattainment in New Hampshire in August 2013, the attainment SIP was due by April 4, 2015 and must contain a demonstration that the area will attain the 2010 SO
As noted in EPA's preamble for the 2010 SO
In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statements that EPA must disapprove New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submission because it does not establish specific enforceable SO
In acting to approve or disapprove an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not required to make findings regarding current air quality status of areas within the state, such area's projected future air quality status, or whether existing emissions limits in such area are sufficient to meet a NAAQS in the area. The attainment planning process detailed in part D of the CAA, including sections 172 and 191-192 attainment SIPs, is the appropriate place for the state to evaluate measures needed to bring in-state nonattainment areas into attainment with a NAAQS and to impose additional emission limitations such as SO
EPA had initially recommended that states submit substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality modeling in the final 2010 SO
The Commenter, citing administrative law principles regarding consideration of comments provided during a rulemaking process,
While EPA does not believe that infrastructure SIP submissions are
While EPA does agree that the averaging time is a critical consideration for purposes of substantive SIP revisions, such as attainment demonstrations, the averaging time of existing rules in the SIP is not relevant for determining that the State has met the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) with respect to the infrastructure elements addressed in the present SIP action.
Because New Hampshire did not make a submission in its September 13, 2013 SIP submittal to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA is not required to have proposed or to take final SIP approval or disapproval action on this element under section 110(k) of the CAA. In this case, there has been no substantive submission for EPA to evaluate under section 110(k). Nor does the lack of a submission addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require EPA to disapprove New Hampshire's September 13, 2013 SIP submittal as to the other elements of section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as affording EPA the discretion to approve, or conditionally approve, individual elements of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submissions, separate and apart from any action with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements in section 110(a)(2), such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other infrastructure elements and interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on individual severable measures in a plan submission.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA is authorized and obligated to promulgate a FIP, if EPA takes any of the following actions: (1) Finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission; (2) finds that a required submission was incomplete; or (3) disapproves a required SIP submission in whole or in part. With respect to the 2010 SO
EPA is approving a SIP submission from New Hampshire certifying the state's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 SO
In the above table, the key is as follows:
Additionally, we are updating the classification of two air quality control regions in New Hampshire at 40 CFR 52.1521. The classification of the Androscoggin Valley Interstate control region is being revised from Priority 1A to Priority III and the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate control region is being revised from Priority I to Priority III based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state.
EPA is conditionally approving an aspect of New Hampshire's SIP revision submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The outstanding issue with the PSD program concerns the lack of a requirement that neighboring states be notified of the issuance of a PSD permit by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. On September 25, 2015, we conditionally approved New Hampshire's PSD program for this reason. See 80 FR 57722. Accordingly, we are also conditionally approving this aspect of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP revisions for the 2010 SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(11) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on September 13, 2013, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to providing notification to neighboring states of certain permitting activity being considered by New Hampshire. This conditional approval is contingent upon New Hampshire taking actions to address these requirements as detailed within a final conditional approval dated September 25, 2015.
(e) * * *
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States, Canada and Mexico have agreed to liberalize provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) preference rules of origin that relate to certain goods, including certain spices. However, such liberalization cannot take effect unless U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) amends its regulations to allow the NAFTA preference override to apply to certain spice products and other food products. This document proposes such an amendment.
Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by
•
•
Monika Brenner, Chief, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0038.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. CBP also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rulemaking. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rulemaking, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. See
On December 17, 1992, the United States, Canada, and Mexico (the parties) entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The provisions of the NAFTA were adopted by the United States with enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (December 8, 1993). Under Article 401 of the NAFTA, an imported good qualifies as an originating good of a NAFTA party if: (1) It is wholly obtained or produced in one or more of the NAFTA parties; (2) it is produced entirely in one or more of the NAFTA parties exclusively from materials that originate in those parties; or (3) each of the non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification as a result of production occurring entirely in the territory of one or more of the parties and satisfies any other applicable requirement (which may include a regional value-content requirement). The NAFTA preference change in tariff classification (or “tariff-shift”) rules are set forth in General Note 12(t) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
General Note 12(a), HTSUS, provides that an imported good is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the NAFTA only if it is an originating good of a NAFTA party
Thus in certain instances § 102.19 allows the originating status of a good to “override” a determination that it is not a good of Canada or Mexico. In other words, it allows NAFTA preferential tariff treatment to be granted to certain goods that otherwise would be ineligible for such treatment due to the General Note 12(a)'s requirement that originating goods qualify to be marked as goods of Canada or Mexico under the NAFTA Marking Rules. However, under § 102.19, as it currently reads, minor processing would not be a type of production that would qualify a good to be labeled as a product of the country in which the labeling took place and thus would not enable the good to take advantage of NAFTA tariff preferences.
Since the NAFTA entered into effect, the three parties to the Agreement have agreed to liberalizations to the NAFTA preference rules of origin for various goods. As a result, a lesser degree of processing in a NAFTA party is required to constitute “production” which will confer originating status to certain non-NAFTA materials. The United States took steps to implement these changes by amending the NAFTA preference tariff-shift rules in General Note 12(t), HTSUS, through Presidential Proclamations 7870 dated February 9, 2005 (published in the
For spices and certain other food products, Presidential Proclamation 7870 specifically liberalized various rules of origin in General Note 12(t) to permit minor processing operations in a NAFTA party, such as packaging, to confer originating status on a good. For example, the NAFTA preference rule for tea (heading 0902, HTSUS) was changed to permit blending and/or packaging to confer NAFTA originating status. Similarly, changes to the preference rules of origin for products such as peppers (subheading 0904.12, HTSUS), cloves (heading 0907, HTSUS), poppy seeds (subheading 1207.91, HTSUS), and certain other spices were also liberalized by Proclamation 7870 to allow these goods to become NAFTA originating as a result of packaging operations in a NAFTA party. It is noted that blending is considered to be more than a minor processing operation for purposes of the NAFTA Marking Rules.
However, contrary to the intentions of the NAFTA parties, these goods are not receiving NAFTA preferential tariff treatment when imported into the United States from Canada or Mexico because they do not qualify to be marked as goods of Canada or Mexico under the NAFTA Marking Rules in 19 CFR part 102, as required by General Note 12(a), HTSUS. This anomalous result stems, in part, from the fact that, in regard to those goods that obtain originating status as a result of minor processing in a NAFTA party, the pertinent NAFTA marking rules in 19 CFR 102.20 are more stringent than the comparable liberalized NAFTA preference rules set forth in General Note 12(t), HTSUS. As discussed above, the NAFTA preference override provision in § 102.19(a) fails to resolve this problem since, as discussed above, this provision overrides a determination that a good is not a good of Canada or Mexico only in situations in which the good undergoes production other than minor processing, in a NAFTA country.
CBP notes that 19 CFR 102.17 provides that a foreign material will not be considered to have undergone an applicable change in tariff classification specified in § 102.20 or § 102.21 or to have met any other applicable requirements of those sections merely by reason of having been subjected to certain specified operations, including “[s]imple packing, repacking or retail packaging without more than minor processing.” This provision clearly is not an impediment to the proposed amendment set forth in this document as the “non-qualifying operations” specified in § 102.17 relate only to the application of the rules set forth in §§ 102.20 and 102.21 and not to the NAFTA preference override in § 102.19.
CBP understands that, as a result of actions taken or interpretations adopted by the Governments of Canada and Mexico, the above-referenced spices and other food products subject to the NAFTA liberalizations are receiving NAFTA preferential tariff treatment when imported from the United States into Canada and Mexico (assuming compliance with all applicable requirements). To rectify the problem discussed above with respect to imports from Canada and Mexico, CBP is proposing to amend § 102.19 by adding a new paragraph (c) to allow the NAFTA preference override to apply to these specific goods. This proposed change, if finalized, will give effect to the intentions of the NAFTA parties by extending NAFTA preferential tariff treatment to certain goods imported from Canada and Mexico that, under the liberalized rules of origin in General Note 12(t), are considered NAFTA originating as a result of minor processing operations (
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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 (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. This rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule.
This section examines the impact of the rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule, if finalized, will extend NAFTA preferential tariff treatment to certain goods imported from Mexico and Canada that currently are not receiving such treatment, despite the fact that these goods presently qualify as NAFTA originating under General Note 12(t), HTSUS. Therefore, the proposed amendment would benefit importers of such goods from Canada and Mexico by eliminating the customs duties and merchandise processing fees that presently are due for these importations. To the extent that this rulemaking affects small entities, these entities would experience a cost savings. Therefore, CBP certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As there is no collection of information proposed in this document, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.
This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Canada, Customs duties and inspections, Imports, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
For the reasons set forth above, part 102 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 102) is proposed to be amended as set forth below.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624, 3314, 3592.
(c) If a good classifiable under heading 0907, 0908, 0909, or subheading 0910.11, 0910.12, 0910.30, 0910.99 or 1207.91, HTSUS, is originating within the meaning of section 181.1(q) of this chapter, but is not determined under section 102.11(a) or (b) to be a good of a single NAFTA country, the country of origin of such good is the last NAFTA country in which that good underwent production, provided that a Certificate of Origin (see § 181.11 of this Chapter) has been completed and signed for the good.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations relating to the health insurance premium tax credit (premium tax credit) and the individual shared responsibility provision. These proposed regulations affect individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Health Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges, also called Marketplaces) and claim the premium tax credit, and Exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals and employers. These proposed regulations also affect individuals who are eligible for employer-sponsored health coverage and individuals who seek to claim an exemption from the individual shared responsibility provision because of unaffordable coverage. Although employers are not directly affected by rules governing the premium tax credit, these proposed regulations may indirectly affect employers through the employer shared responsibility provisions and the related information reporting provisions.
Written (including electronic) comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 6, 2016.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-109086-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 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-109086-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Shareen Pflanz, (202) 317-4727; concerning the submission of comments and/or requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free calls).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by September 6, 2016. Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The collection of information in these proposed regulations is in § 1.36B-5. The collection of information is necessary to reconcile advance payments of the premium tax credit and determine the allowable premium tax credit. The collection of information is required to comply with the provisions of section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The likely respondents are Marketplaces that enroll individuals in qualified health plans.
The burden for the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations will be reflected in the burden on Form 1095-A,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Beginning in 2014, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
The Affordable Care Act also added section 5000A to the Code. Section 5000A was subsequently amended by the TRICARE Affirmation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-159 (124 Stat. 1123 (2010)) and Public Law 111-173 (124 Stat. 1215 (2010)). Section 5000A provides that, for months beginning after December 31, 2013, a nonexempt individual must have qualifying healthcare coverage (called minimum essential coverage) or make an individual shared responsibility payment.
To be eligible for a premium tax credit, an individual must be an applicable taxpayer. Among other requirements, under section 36B(c)(1) an applicable taxpayer is a taxpayer whose household income for the taxable year is between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL) for the taxpayer's family size (or is a lawfully present non-citizen who has income below 100 percent of the FPL and is ineligible for Medicaid). A taxpayer's family size is equal to the number of individuals in the taxpayer's family. Under section 36B(d)(1), a taxpayer's family consists of the individuals for whom the taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction under section 151 for the taxable year. Taxpayers may claim a personal exemption deduction for themselves, a spouse, and each of their dependents.
Under section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act, advance payments of the premium tax credit (advance credit payments) may be made directly to insurers on behalf of eligible individuals. The amount of advance credit payments made on behalf of a taxpayer in a taxable year is determined by a number of factors including projections of the taxpayer's household income and family size for the taxable year. Taxpayers who receive the benefit of advance credit payments are required to file an income tax return to reconcile the amount of advance credit payments made during the year with the amount of the credit allowable for the taxable year.
Under § 1.36B-2(b)(6), in general, a taxpayer whose household income for a taxable year is less than 100 percent of the applicable FPL is nonetheless treated as an applicable taxpayer if (1) the taxpayer or a family member enrolls in a qualified health plan, (2) an Exchange estimates at the time of enrollment that the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year will be between 100 and 400 percent of the applicable FPL, (3) advance credit payments are authorized and paid for one or more months during the taxable year, and (4) the taxpayer would be an applicable taxpayer but for the fact that the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year is below 100 percent of the applicable FPL.
Under section 36B(a), a taxpayer's premium tax credit is equal to the premium assistance credit amount for the taxable year. Section 36B(b)(1) and § 1.36B-3(d) generally provide that the premium assistance credit amount is the sum of the premium assistance amounts for all coverage months in the taxable year for individuals in the taxpayer's family. The premium assistance amount for a coverage month is the lesser of (1) the premiums for the month for one or more qualified health plans that cover a taxpayer or family member (enrollment premium), or (2) the excess of the adjusted monthly premium for the second lowest cost silver plan (as described in section 1302(d)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022(d)(1)(B)) offered through the Exchange for the rating area where the taxpayer resides that would provide coverage to the taxpayer's coverage family (the benchmark plan), over 1/12 of the product of the taxpayer's household income and the applicable percentage for the taxable year (the contribution amount). In general, the benchmark plan's adjusted monthly premium is the premium an insurer would charge for the plan adjusted only for the ages of the covered individuals. The applicable percentage is provided in a table that is updated annually and represents the portion of a taxpayer's household income that the taxpayer is expected to pay if the taxpayer's coverage family enrolls in the benchmark plan. See, for example, Rev. Proc. 2014-62, 2014-2 C.B. 948 (providing the applicable percentage table for taxable years beginning in 2016) and Rev. Proc. 2014-37, 2014-2 C.B. 363 (providing the applicable percentage table for taxable years beginning in 2015). A taxpayer's coverage family refers to all members of the taxpayer's family who enroll in a qualified health plan in a month and are not eligible for minimum essential coverage as defined in section 5000A(f) (other than coverage in the individual market) for that month.
Under section 1301(a)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, a qualified health plan must offer the essential health benefits package described in section 1302(a). Under section 1302(b)(1)(J) of the Affordable Care Act, the essential health benefits package includes pediatric services, including oral and vision care. Section 1302(b)(4)(F) of the Affordable Care Act provides that, if an Exchange offers a plan described in section 1311(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 13031(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I)) (a stand-alone dental plan), other health plans offered through the Exchange will not fail to be qualified health plans solely because the plans do not offer pediatric dental benefits.
For purposes of calculating the premium assistance amount for a taxpayer who enrolls in both a qualified health plan and a stand-alone dental plan, section 36B(b)(3)(E) provides that the enrollment premium includes the portion of the premium for the stand-alone dental plan properly allocable to pediatric dental benefits that are included in the essential health benefits required to be provided by a qualified health plan.
Section 36B(b)(3)(B) provides that the benchmark plan with respect to an applicable taxpayer is the second lowest cost silver plan offered by the Marketplace through which the applicable taxpayer (or a family member) enrolled and which provides (1) self-only coverage, in the case of unmarried individuals (other than a surviving spouse or head of household) who do not claim any dependents, or any other individual who enrolls in self-only coverage, and (2) family coverage, in the case of any other applicable taxpayer. Section 1.36B-1(l) provides that self-only coverage means health insurance that covers one individual. Section 1.36B-1(m) provides that family coverage means health insurance that covers more than one individual.
Under § 1.36B-3(f)(3), if there are one or more silver-level plans offered through the Exchange for the rating area where the taxpayer resides that do not cover all members of a taxpayer's
Section 1.36B-3(d)(2) provides that, if a qualified health plan is terminated before the last day of a month or an individual is enrolled in coverage effective on the date of the individual's birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care, or on the effective date of a court order, the premium assistance amount for the month is the lesser of the enrollment premiums for the month (reduced by any amounts that were refunded) or the excess of the benchmark plan premium for a full month of coverage over the full contribution amount for the month.
Under section 36B(c)(2)(A) and § 1.36B-3(c)(1), a coverage month is generally any month for which the taxpayer or a family member is covered by a qualified health plan enrolled in through an Exchange on the first day of the month and the premium is paid by the taxpayer or through an advance credit payment. However, section 36B(c)(2) provides that a month is not a coverage month for an individual who is eligible for minimum essential coverage other than coverage in the individual market. Under section 36B(c)(2)(B)(ii), minimum essential coverage is defined by reference to section 5000A(f). Minimum essential coverage includes government-sponsored programs such as most Medicaid coverage, Medicare part A, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), most TRICARE programs, most coverage provided to veterans under title 38 of the United States Code, and the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program of the Department of Defense. See section 5000A(f)(1) and § 1.5000A-2(b). Section 1.36B-2(c)(3)(i) provides that, for purposes of section 36B, the government-sponsored programs described in section 5000A(f)(1)(A) are not considered eligible employer-sponsored plans.
Under § 1.36B-2(c)(2)(i), an individual generally is treated as eligible for government-sponsored minimum essential coverage as of the first day of the first full month that the individual meets the criteria for coverage and is eligible to receive benefits under the government program. However, under § 1.36B-2(c)(2)(v) an individual is treated as not eligible for Medicaid, CHIP, or a similar program for a period of coverage under a qualified health plan if, when the individual enrolls in the qualified health plan, an Exchange determines or considers (within the meaning of 45 CFR 155.302(b)) the individual to be ineligible for such program. In addition, § 1.36B-2(c)(2)(iv) provides that if an individual receiving the benefit of advance credit payments is determined to be eligible for a government-sponsored program, and that eligibility is effective retroactively, then, for purposes of the premium tax credit, the individual is treated as eligible for the program no earlier than the first day of the first calendar month beginning after the approval.
Coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan is minimum essential coverage. In general, an eligible employer-sponsored plan is coverage provided by an employer to its employees (and their dependents) under a group health plan maintained by the employer.
Under section 36B(c)(2)(C) and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(i), except as provided in the next paragraph of this preamble, an individual is treated as eligible for coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan only if the employee's share of the premium is affordable and the coverage provides minimum value. Under section 36B(c)(2)(C), an eligible employer-sponsored plan is treated as affordable for an employee if the amount of the employee's required contribution (within the meaning of section 5000A(e)(1)(B)) for self-only coverage does not exceed a specified percentage of the employee's household income. The affordability of coverage for individuals related to an employee is determined in the same manner. Thus, under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2), an eligible employer-sponsored plan is treated as affordable for an individual eligible for the plan because of a relationship to an employee if the amount of the employee's required contribution for self-only coverage does not exceed a specified percentage of the employee's household income.
Under § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v)(A)(3), an eligible employer-sponsored plan is not considered affordable if, when an individual enrolls in a qualified health plan, the Marketplace determines that the eligible employer-sponsored plan is not affordable. However, that rule does not apply for an individual who, with reckless disregard for the facts, provides incorrect information to a Marketplace concerning the employee's portion of the annual premium for coverage under the eligible employer-sponsored plan. In addition, under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(iii) and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(vii)(A), an individual is treated as eligible for employer-sponsored coverage if the individual actually enrolls in an eligible employer-sponsored plan, even if the coverage is not affordable or does not provide minimum value.
Section 1.36B-2(c)(3)(iii)(A) provides that, subject to the rules described above, an employee or related individual may be considered eligible for coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan for a month during a plan year if the employee or related individual could have enrolled in the plan for that month during an open or special enrollment period. Under § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(ii), plan year means an eligible employer-sponsored plan's regular 12-month coverage period (or the remainder of a 12-month coverage period for a new employee or an individual who enrolls during a special enrollment period).
Although coverage in the individual market is minimum essential coverage under section 5000A(f)(1)(C), under section 36B(c)(2)(B)(i), an individual who is eligible for or enrolled in coverage in the individual market (whether or not obtained through the Marketplace) nevertheless may have a coverage month for purposes of the premium tax credit.
Under section 36B(c)(2)(C) and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v)(A)(
Section 5000A provides that, for each month, taxpayers must have minimum essential coverage, qualify for a health coverage exemption, or make an individual shared responsibility
Notice 2015-87, 2015-52 I.R.B. 889, provides guidance on determining the affordability of an employer's offer of eligible employer-sponsored coverage for purposes of sections 36B, 5000A, and 4980H (and the related information reporting under section 6056).
As Notice 2015-87 explains, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is generally appropriate to treat an opt-out payment that is made available under an unconditional opt-out arrangement in the same manner as a salary reduction contribution for purposes of determining an employee's required contribution under sections 36B and 5000A and any related consequences under sections 4980H(b) and 6056. Accordingly, Notice 2015-87 provides that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to propose regulations reflecting this rule and to request comments on those regulations. For this purpose, an unconditional opt-out arrangement refers to an arrangement providing payments conditioned solely on an employee declining coverage under employer-sponsored coverage and not on an employee satisfying any other meaningful requirement related to the provision of health care to employees, such as a requirement to provide proof of coverage through a plan of a spouse's employer.
Notice 2015-87 also provides that the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate requesting comments on the treatment of conditional opt-out arrangements, meaning opt-out arrangements under which payments are conditioned not only on the employee declining employer-sponsored coverage but also on satisfaction of one or more additional meaningful conditions (such as the employee providing proof of enrollment in coverage provided by a spouse's employer or other coverage).
Notice 2015-87 provides that, until the applicability date of any final regulations (and in any event for plan years beginning before 2017), individuals may treat opt-out payments made available under unconditional opt-out arrangements as increasing the employee's required contribution for purposes of sections 36B and 5000A.
Notice 2015-87 included a request for comments on opt-out arrangements. The Treasury Department and the IRS received a number of comments, and the comments are discussed in section 2.f. of this preamble entitled “
Section 36B(f)(3) provides that Exchanges must report to the IRS and to taxpayers certain information required to administer the premium tax credit. Section 1.36B-5(c)(1) provides that the information required to be reported annually includes (1) identifying information for each enrollee, (2) identifying information for the coverage, (3) the amount of enrollment premiums and advance credit payments for the coverage, (4) the premium for the benchmark plan used to calculate the amount of the advance credit payments made on behalf of the taxpayer or other enrollee, if advance credit payments were made, and the benchmark plan premium that would apply to all individuals enrolled in the coverage if advance credit payments were not made, and (5) the dates the coverage started and ended. Section 1.36B-5(c)(3)(i) provides that an Exchange must report this information for each family enrolled in the coverage.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, these regulations are proposed to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016. As indicated in
To avoid repayments of advance credit payments for taxpayers who experience an unforeseen decline in income, the existing regulations provide that if an Exchange determines at enrollment that the taxpayer's household income will be at least 100 percent but will not exceed 400 percent of the applicable FPL, the taxpayer will not lose his or her status as an applicable taxpayer solely because household income for the year turns out to be below 100 percent of the applicable FPL. To reduce the likelihood that individuals who recklessly or intentionally provide inaccurate information to an Exchange will benefit from an Exchange determination, the proposed regulations provide that a taxpayer whose household income is below 100 percent of the FPL for the taxpayer's family size is not treated as an applicable taxpayer if, with intentional or reckless disregard for the facts, the taxpayer provided incorrect information to an Exchange for the year of coverage.
Similar to the rule for taxpayers who received the benefit of advance credit payments but ended the taxable year with household income below 100 percent of the applicable FPL, the existing regulations do not require a repayment of advance credit payments for taxpayers with household income within the range for eligibility for certain government-sponsored programs if an Exchange determined or considered (within the meaning of 45 CFR 155.302(b)) the taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer's family to be ineligible for the program. To reduce the likelihood that individuals who recklessly or intentionally provide inaccurate information to an Exchange will benefit from an Exchange determination, the proposed regulations provide that an individual who was determined or considered by an Exchange to be ineligible for Medicaid, CHIP, or a similar program (such as a Basic Health Program) may be treated as eligible for coverage under the program if, with intentional or reckless disregard for the facts, the individual (or a person claiming a personal exemption for the individual) provided incorrect information to the Exchange.
The existing regulations under section 36B provide that government-sponsored programs described in section 5000A(f)(1)(A), which include the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program of the Department of Defense, established under section 349 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1587 note), are not eligible employer-sponsored plans. However, § 1.5000A-2(c)(2) provides that, because the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program (Program) is offered by an instrumentality of the Department of Defense to its employees, the Program is an eligible employer-sponsored plan. The proposed regulations conform the section 36B regulations to the section 5000A regulations and provide that the Program is treated as an eligible employer-sponsored plan for purposes of determining if an individual is eligible for minimum essential coverage under section 36B. Thus, if coverage under the Program does not provide minimum value (under § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(vi)) or is not affordable (under § 36B-2(c)(3)(v)) for an individual who does not enroll in the coverage, he or she is not treated as eligible for minimum essential coverage under the Program for purposes of premium tax credit eligibility.
The existing regulations under section 36B provide that an individual is eligible for minimum essential coverage through an eligible employer-sponsored plan if the individual had the opportunity to enroll in the plan and the plan is affordable and provides minimum value. The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that in some instances individuals may not be allowed an annual opportunity to decide whether to enroll in eligible employer-sponsored coverage. This lack of an annual opportunity to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage should not limit an individual's annual choice from available coverage options through the Marketplace with the possibility of benefitting from the premium tax credit. Thus, the proposed regulations clarify that if an individual declines to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage for a plan year and does not have the opportunity to enroll in that coverage for one or more succeeding plan years, for purposes of section 36B, the individual is treated as ineligible for that coverage for the succeeding plan year or years for which there is no enrollment opportunity.
Under section 36B and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(vii)(A), an individual is treated as eligible for minimum essential coverage through an eligible employer-sponsored plan if the individual actually enrolls in the coverage, even if the coverage is not affordable or does not provide minimum value. Although health coverage that consists solely of excepted benefits may be a group health plan and, therefore, is an eligible employer-sponsored plan under section 5000A(f)(2) and § 1.5000A-2(c)(1), section 5000A(f)(3) provides that health coverage that consists solely of excepted benefits is not minimum essential coverage. Therefore, individuals enrolled in a plan consisting solely of excepted benefits still must obtain minimum essential coverage to satisfy the individual shared responsibility provision. The proposed regulations clarify that for purposes of section 36B an individual is considered eligible for coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan only if that plan is minimum essential coverage. Accordingly, an individual enrolled in or offered a plan consisting solely of excepted benefits is not denied the premium tax credit by virtue of that excepted benefits offer or coverage. Taxpayers may rely on this rule for all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
Sections 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v) and 1.5000A-3(e)(3)(ii)(A) provide that, in determining whether employer-sponsored coverage is affordable to an employee, an employee's required contribution for the coverage includes the amount by which the employee's salary would be reduced to enroll in the
Notice 2015-87 requested comments on the proposed treatment of opt-out arrangements outlined in Q&A-9 of that notice. Several commenters objected to the proposal that the amount of an available unconditional opt-out payment increases the employee's required contribution on the basis that forgoing opt-out payments as part of enrolling in coverage has not traditionally been viewed by employers or employees as economically equivalent to making a salary reduction election and that such a rule would discourage employers from making opt-out payments available. None of the commenters, however, offered a persuasive economic basis for distinguishing unconditional opt-out payments from other compensation that an employee must forgo to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage, such as a salary reduction. Because forgoing an unconditional opt-out payment is economically equivalent to forgoing salary pursuant to a salary reduction election, and because §§ 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v) and 1.5000A-3(e)(3)(ii)(A) provide that the employee's required contribution includes the amount of any salary reduction, the proposed regulations adopt the approach described in Notice 2015-87 for opt-out payments made available under unconditional opt-out arrangements and provide that the amount of an opt-out payment made available to the employee under an unconditional opt-out arrangement increases the employee's required contribution.
Notice 2015-87 provides that, for periods prior to the applicability date of any final regulations, employers are not required to increase the amount of an employee's required contribution by amounts made available under an opt-out arrangement for purposes of section 4980H(b) or section 6056 (in particular Form 1095-C,
Some commenters requested clarification that an unconditional opt-out arrangement that is required under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement in effect before December 16, 2015, should be treated as having been adopted prior to December 16, 2015, and that amounts made available under such an opt-out arrangement should not be included in an employee's required contribution for purposes of sections 4980H(b) or 6056 through the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement that provides for the opt-out arrangement. The Treasury Department and the IRS now clarify that, under Notice 2015-87, for purposes of sections 4980H(b) and 6056, an unconditional opt-out arrangement that is required under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement in effect before December 16, 2015, will be treated as having been adopted prior to December 16, 2015. In addition, until the later of (1) the beginning of the first plan year that begins following the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement in effect before December 16, 2015 (disregarding any extensions on or after December 16, 2015), or (2) the applicability date of these regulations with respect to sections 4980H and 6056, employers participating in the collective bargaining agreement are not required to increase the amount of an employee's required contribution by amounts made available under such an opt-out arrangement for purposes of sections 4980H(b) or 6056 (Form 1095-C). The Treasury Department and the IRS further adopt these commenters' request that this treatment apply to any successor employer adopting the opt-out arrangement before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement in effect before December 16, 2015 (disregarding any extensions on or after December 16, 2015). Commenters raised the issue of whether other types of agreements covering employees may need a similar extension of the relief through the end of the agreement's term. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments identifying the types of agreements raising this issue due to their similarity to collective bargaining agreements because, for example, the agreement is similar in scope to a collective bargaining agreement, binding on the parties involved for a multi-year period, and subject to a statutory or regulatory regime.
Several commenters suggested that, notwithstanding the proposal on unconditional opt-out arrangements, the amount of an opt-out payment made available should not increase an employee's required contribution if the opt-out payment is conditioned on the employee having minimum essential coverage through another source, such as a spouse's employer-sponsored plan. These commenters argued that the amount of such a conditional opt-out payment should not affect the affordability of an employer's offer of employer-sponsored coverage for an employee who does not satisfy the applicable condition because that employee is ineligible to receive the opt-out payment. Moreover, commenters argued that an employee who satisfies the condition (that is, who has alternative minimum essential coverage) is ineligible for the premium tax credit and does not need to determine the affordability of the employer's coverage offer. Thus, the commenters asserted, an amount made available under such an arrangement should be excluded from the required contribution.
While it is clear that the availability of an unconditional opt-out payment increases an individual's required
Similarly, another way to view opt-out payments that are conditioned on alternative coverage is that, rather than raising the cost to the employee of the employer's coverage, they reduce the cost to the employee of the alternative coverage. However, because employers generally do not have information about the existence and cost of other options available to the individual, it is not practical to take into account any offer of coverage other than the offer made by the employer in determining the required contribution with respect to the employer coverage (that is, the coverage that the employee must decline to receive the opt-out payment).
While commenters indicated that the required contribution with respect to the employer coverage does not matter for an individual enrolled in any other minimum essential coverage because the individual would be ineligible for the premium tax credit, this statement is not true if the other coverage is individual market coverage. In particular, while enrollment in most types of minimum essential coverage results in an individual being ineligible for a premium tax credit, that is not the case for coverage in the individual market. Moreover, for individual market coverage offered through a Marketplace, the required contribution with respect to the employer coverage frequently will be relevant in determining whether the individual is eligible for a premium tax credit. In such cases, as in the case of an unconditional opt-out payment, the availability of a conditional opt-out payment effectively increases the cost to the individual of enrolling in the employer coverage (at least relative to Marketplace coverage).
Further, an opt-out arrangement that is conditioned on an employee's ability to obtain other coverage (if that coverage can be coverage in the individual market, whether inside or outside the Marketplace) does not generally raise the issues described earlier in this section of the preamble regarding the difficulty of ascertaining which individuals could meet the condition under a conditional opt-out arrangement. This is because generally all individuals are able to obtain coverage in the individual market, pursuant to the guaranteed issue requirements in section 2702 of the PHS Act. Thus, in the sense that all individuals can satisfy the applicable condition, such an opt-out arrangement is similar to an unconditional opt-out arrangement.
In an effort to provide a workable rule that balances these competing concerns, the proposed regulations provide that amounts made available under conditional opt-out arrangements are disregarded in determining the required contribution if the arrangement satisfies certain conditions (an “eligible opt-out arrangement”), but otherwise the amounts are taken into account. The proposed regulations define an “eligible opt-out arrangement” as an arrangement under which the employee's right to receive the opt-out payment is conditioned on (1) the employee declining to enroll in the employer-sponsored coverage and (2) the employee providing reasonable evidence that the employee and all other individuals for whom the employee reasonably expects to claim a personal exemption deduction for the taxable year or years that begin or end in or with the employer's plan year to which the opt-out arrangement applies (employee's expected tax family) have or will have minimum essential coverage (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through the Marketplace) during the period of coverage to which the opt-out arrangement applies. For example, if an employee's expected tax family consists of the employee, the employee's spouse, and two children, the employee would meet this requirement by providing reasonable evidence that the employee, the employee's spouse, and the two children, will have coverage under the group health plan of the spouse' s employer for the period to which the opt-out arrangement applies.
The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on this proposed rule, including suggestions for other workable rules that result in the required contribution more accurately reflecting the individual's cost of coverage while minimizing undesirable consequences and incentives.
For purposes of the proposed eligible opt-out arrangement rule, reasonable evidence of alternative coverage includes the employee's attestation that the employee and all other members of the employee's expected tax family, if any, have or will have minimum essential coverage (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through the Marketplace) or other reasonable evidence. Notwithstanding the evidence of alternative coverage required under the arrangement, to qualify as an eligible opt-out arrangement, the arrangement must also provide that any opt-out payment will not be made (and the payment must not in fact be made) if the employer knows or has reason to know that the employee or any other member of the employee's expected tax family does not have (or will not have) the required alternative coverage. An eligible opt-out arrangement must also require that the evidence of coverage be provided no less frequently than every plan year to which the eligible opt-out arrangement applies, and that the evidence be provided no earlier than a reasonable period before the commencement of the period of coverage to which the eligible opt-out arrangement applies. Obtaining the reasonable evidence (such as an attestation) as part of the regular annual open enrollment period that occurs within a few months before the commencement of the next plan year of employer-sponsored coverage meets this reasonable period requirement. Alternatively, the eligible opt-out arrangement would be permitted to require evidence of alternative coverage to be provided later, such as after the plan year starts, which would enable the employer to require evidence that the employee and other members of the
Commenters on Notice 2015-87 generally stated that typical conditions under an opt-out arrangement include a requirement that the employee have alternative coverage through employer-sponsored coverage of a spouse or another relative, such as a parent. Provided that, as required under the opt-out arrangement, the employee provided reasonable evidence of this alternative coverage for the employee and the other members of the employee's expected tax family, and met the related conditions described in this preamble, these types of opt-out arrangements would be eligible opt-out arrangements, and opt-out payments made available under such arrangements would not increase the employee's required contribution.
The Treasury Department and the IRS did not receive comments on opt-out arrangements indicating that the meaningful conditions imposed include any requirement other than one relating to alternative coverage. Therefore, the proposed rules do not address other opt-out conditions and would not treat an opt-out arrangement based on other conditions as an eligible opt-out arrangement. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on whether opt-out payments are made subject to additional types of conditions in some cases, whether those types of conditions should be addressed in further guidance, and, if so, how.
One commenter suggested that, if opt-out payments conditioned on alternative coverage are not included in an employee's required contribution, rules will be needed for cases in which an employee receives an opt-out payment and that employee's alternative coverage subsequently terminates. The commenter suggested that, in that case, the termination of the alternative coverage should have no impact on the determination of the employee's required contribution for the employer-sponsored coverage from which the employee opted out. In response, under the proposed regulations, provided that the reasonable evidence requirement is met, the amount of an opt-out payment made available under an eligible opt-out arrangement may continue to be excluded from the employee's required contribution for the remainder of the period of coverage to which the opt-out payment originally applied. The opt-out payment may be excluded for this period even if the alternative coverage subsequently terminates for the employee or any other member of the employee's expected tax family, regardless of whether the opt-out payment is required to be adjusted or terminated due to the loss of alternative coverage, and regardless of whether the employee is required to provide notice of the loss of alternative coverage to the employer.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that the way in which opt-out arrangements affect the calculation of affordability is important not only to an employee and the other members of the employee's expected tax family in determining whether they may be eligible for a premium tax credit or whether an individual may be exempt under the individual shared responsibility provisions, but also to an employer subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions under section 4980H in determining whether the employer may be subject to an assessable payment under section 4980H(b). An employer subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions will be subject to a payment under section 4980H(b) only with respect to a full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit, and an employee will not be eligible for the premium tax credit if the employer's offer of coverage was affordable and provided minimum value.
Some commenters requested exceptions for special circumstances from the general rule that the employee's required contribution is increased by the amount of an opt-out payment made available. These circumstances include (1) conditional opt-out payments that are required under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement and (2) opt-out payments that are below a de minimis amount. Regarding opt-out arrangements contained in collective bargaining agreements, the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate that the proposed treatment of eligible opt-out arrangements, generally, will address the concerns raised in the comments. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS do not propose to provide a permanent exception for opt-out arrangements provided under collective bargaining agreements. Earlier in this section of the preamble, however, the Treasury Department and the IRS clarify and expand the transition relief provided under Notice 2015-87 for opt-out arrangements provided under collective bargaining agreements in effect before December 16, 2015. As for an exception for de minimis amounts, the Treasury Department and the IRS decline to adopt such an exception because there is neither a statutory nor an economic basis for establishing a de minimis threshold under which an unconditional opt-out payment would be excluded from the employee's required contribution.
Section 36B and the regulations under section 36B provide that an individual who may enroll in minimum essential coverage outside the Marketplace (other than individual market coverage) for a month is generally not allowed a premium tax credit for that month. Consequently, individuals enrolled in a qualified health plan with advance credit payments must return to the Exchange to report eligibility for other minimum essential coverage so the Exchange can discontinue the advance credit payments for Marketplace coverage. Similarly, individuals enrolled in a qualified health plan with advance credit payments may be determined eligible for coverage under a government-sponsored program, such as Medicaid. In some cases, individuals may inform the Exchange of their opportunity to enroll in other minimum essential coverage or receive approval for coverage under a government-sponsored program after the time for which the Exchange can discontinue advance credit payments for the next
Under § 1.36B-3(c)(1)(ii), a month in which an individual who is enrolled in a qualified health plan is a coverage month for the individual only if the taxpayer's share of the premium for the individual's coverage for the month is paid by the unextended due date of the taxpayer's income tax return for the year of coverage, or the premium is fully paid by advance credit payments.
One of the functions of an Exchange is to make determinations as to whether an individual who enrolls in a qualified health plan is eligible for advance credit payments for the coverage. If an Exchange determines that the individual is not eligible for advance credit payments, the individual may appeal that decision. An individual who is initially determined ineligible for advance credit payments, does not enroll in a qualified health plan under the contested determination, and is later determined to be eligible for advance credit payments through the appeals process, may elect to be retroactively enrolled in a health plan through the Exchange. In that case, the individual is treated as having been enrolled in the qualified health plan from the date on which the individual would have enrolled had he or she initially been determined eligible for advance credit payments. If retroactively enrolled, the deadline for paying premiums for the retroactive coverage may be after the unextended due date for filing an income tax return for the year of coverage. Consequently, the proposed regulations provide that a taxpayer who is eligible for advance credit payments pursuant to an eligibility appeal for a member of the taxpayer's coverage family who, based on the appeals decision, retroactively enrolls in a qualified health plan, is considered to have met the requirement in § 1.36B-3(c)(1)(ii) for a month if the taxpayer pays the taxpayer's share of the premium for coverage under the plan for the month on or before the 120th day following the date of the appeals decision. Taxpayers may rely on this rule for all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
Section 1.36B-3(d)(2) provides that if a qualified health plan is terminated before the last day of a month, the premium assistance amount for the month is the lesser of the enrollment premiums for the month (reduced by any amounts that were refunded), or the excess of the benchmark plan premium for a full month of coverage over the full contribution amount for the month. Section 1.36B-3(c)(2) provides that an individual whose enrollment in a qualified health plan is effective on the date of the individual's birth or adoption, or placement for foster care, or upon the effective date of a court order, is treated as enrolled as of the first day of the month and, therefore, the month of enrollment may be a coverage month. The regulations, however, do not expressly address how the premium assistance amount is computed when a covered individual disenrolls before the last day of a month but the plan is not terminated because other individuals remain enrolled. For purposes of the premium tax credit, the premium assistance amount for an individual who is not enrolled for an entire month should be the same regardless of the circumstances causing the partial-month coverage, provided that the individual was enrolled, or is treated as enrolled, as of the first day of the month (that is, so long as the month is a coverage month). Accordingly, to provide consistency for all individuals who have a coverage month that is less than a full calendar month, the proposed regulations provide that the premium assistance amount for a month is the lesser of the enrollment premiums for the month (reduced by any amounts that were refunded), or the excess of the benchmark plan premium over the contribution amount for the month. Taxpayers may rely on this rule for all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
The rules relating to the benchmark plan in this section are proposed to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
Under section 1311(d)(2)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, only qualified health plans, including stand-alone dental plans offering pediatric dental benefits, may be offered through a Marketplace. In general, a qualified health plan is required to provide coverage for all ten essential health benefits described in section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act, including pediatric dental coverage. However, under section 1302(b)(4)(F), a plan that does not provide pediatric dental benefits may nonetheless be a qualified health plan if it covers each essential health benefit described in section 1302(b) other than pediatric dental benefits and if it is offered through a Marketplace in which a stand-alone dental plan offering pediatric dental benefits is offered as well.
Section 36B(b)(3)(E) and § 1.36B-3(k) provide that if an individual enrolls in both a qualified health plan and a stand-alone dental plan, the portion of the premium for the stand-alone dental plan properly allocable to pediatric dental benefits is treated as a premium payable for the individual's qualified health plan. Thus, in determining a taxpayer's premium assistance amount for a month in which a member of the taxpayer's coverage family is enrolled in a stand-alone dental plan, the taxpayer's enrollment premium includes the portion of the premium for the stand-alone dental plan allocable to pediatric dental benefits. The existing regulations do not provide a similar adjustment for the taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan premium to reflect the cost of pediatric dental benefits in cases where the second-lowest cost silver plan does not provide pediatric dental benefits.
Section 36B(b)(3)(B) provides that the applicable benchmark plan with respect
Under the existing regulations, the references in section 36B(b)(3)(B) to plans that provide self-only coverage and family coverage are interpreted to refer to all qualified health plans offered through the applicable Marketplace, regardless of whether the coverage offered by those plans includes all ten essential health benefits. Because qualified health plans that do not offer pediatric dental benefits tend to be cheaper than qualified health plans that cover all ten essential health benefits, the second lowest-cost silver plan (and therefore the premium tax credit) for taxpayers purchasing coverage through a Marketplace in which stand-alone dental plans are offered is likely to not account for the cost of obtaining pediatric dental coverage.
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the current rule frustrates the statute's goal of making coverage that provides the essential health benefits affordable to individuals eligible for the premium tax credit. Accordingly, the proposed regulations reflect a modification in the interpretation of the terms “self-only coverage” and “family coverage” in section 36B(b)(3)(B) to refer to coverage that provides each of the essential health benefits described in section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act. This coverage may be obtained from either a qualified health plan alone or from a qualified health plan in combination with a stand-alone dental plan. In particular, self-only coverage refers to coverage obtained from such plans where the coverage family is a single individual. Similarly, family coverage refers to coverage obtained from such plans where the coverage family includes more than one individual.
Consistent with this interpretation, the proposed regulations provide that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018, if an Exchange offers one or more silver-level qualified health plans that do not cover pediatric dental benefits, the applicable benchmark plan is determined by ranking (1) the premiums for the silver-level qualified health plans that include pediatric dental benefits offered by the Exchange and (2) the aggregate of the premiums for the silver-level qualified health plans offered by the Exchange that do not include pediatric dental benefits plus the portion of the premium allocable to pediatric dental benefits for stand-alone dental plans offered by the Exchange. In constructing this ranking, the premium for the lowest-cost silver plan that does not include pediatric dental benefits is added to the premium allocable to pediatric dental benefits for the lowest cost stand-alone dental plan, and similarly, the premium for the second lowest-cost silver plan that does not include pediatric dental benefits is added to the premium allocable to pediatric dental benefits for the second lowest-cost stand-alone dental plan. The second lowest-cost amount from this combined ranking is the taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan premium.
Under § 1.36B-3(f), a taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan is the second lowest cost silver plan offered at the time a taxpayer or family member enrolls in a qualified health plan through the Exchange for the rating area where the taxpayer resides. Under § 1.36B-3(f)(4), if members of a taxpayer's family reside in different states and enroll in separate qualified health plans, the premium for the taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan is the sum of the premiums for the applicable benchmark plans for each group of family members living in the same state.
Referring to the residence of the taxpayer to establish the cost for a benchmark health plan is appropriate when the taxpayer and all members of the taxpayer's coverage family live in the same location because it reflects the cost of available coverage for the taxpayer's coverage family. However, because premiums and plan availability may vary based on location, the existing rule for a taxpayer whose family members reside in different locations in the same state may not accurately reflect the cost of available coverage. In addition, the rules for calculating the premium tax credit should operate the same for families residing in multiple locations within a state and families residing in multiple states. Accordingly, § 1.36B-3(f)(4) of the proposed regulations provides that if a taxpayer's coverage family members reside in multiple locations, whether within the same state or in different states, the taxpayer's benchmark plan is determined based on the cost of available coverage in the locations where members of the taxpayer's coverage family reside. In particular, if members of a taxpayer's coverage family reside in different locations, the taxpayer's benchmark plan premium is the sum of the premiums for the applicable benchmark plans for each group of coverage family members residing in different locations, based on the plans offered to the group through the Exchange for the rating area where the group resides. If all members of a taxpayer's coverage family reside in a single location that is different from where the taxpayer resides, the taxpayer's benchmark plan premium is the premium for the applicable benchmark plan for the coverage family, based on the plans offered to the taxpayer's coverage family through the Exchange for the rating area where the coverage family resides.
Section 1.36B-3(f)(3) provides that if one or more silver-level plans offered through an Exchange do not cover all members of a taxpayer's coverage family under one policy (for example, because an issuer will not cover a taxpayer's dependent parent on the same policy the taxpayer enrolls in), the premium for the applicable benchmark plan may be the premium for a single policy or for more than one policy, whichever is the second lowest-cost silver option. This rule does not specify which combinations of policies must be taken into account for this purpose, suggesting that all such combinations must be considered, which is unduly complex for taxpayers, difficult for Exchanges to implement, and difficult for the IRS to administer. Accordingly, to clarify and simplify the benchmark premium determination for situations in which a silver-level plan does not cover all the members of a taxpayer's coverage family under one policy, the proposed regulations delete the existing rule and provide a new rule in its place.
Under the proposed regulations, if a silver-level plan offers coverage to all members of a taxpayer's coverage family who reside in the same location under a single policy, the plan premium taken into account for purposes of determining the applicable benchmark plan is the premium for that policy. In contrast, if a silver-level plan would require multiple policies to cover all members of a taxpayer's coverage family who reside in the same location, the plan premium taken into account for purposes of determining the applicable benchmark plan is the sum of the premiums for self-only policies under the plan for each member of the coverage family who resides in the same location. Under the proposed regulations, similar rules would apply to the portion of premiums for stand-alone dental plans allocable to pediatric
Comments are requested on the rule contained in the proposed regulations, as well as on an alternative rule under which the plan premium taken into account for purposes of determining a taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan would be equal to the sum of the self-only policies under a plan for each member of the taxpayer's coverage family, regardless of whether all members of the taxpayer's coverage family could be covered under a single policy under the plan.
Section 1.36B-3(f)(5) provides that if a qualified health plan is closed to enrollment for a taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer's coverage family, that plan is disregarded in determining the taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan. Similarly, § 1.36B-3(f)(6) provides that a plan that is the applicable benchmark plan for a taxpayer does not cease to be the applicable benchmark plan solely because the plan or a lower cost plan terminates or closes to enrollment during the taxable year. Because stand-alone dental plans are considered in determining a taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan under the proposed regulations, the proposed regulations provide consistency in the treatment of qualified health plans and stand-alone dental plans that are closed to enrollment or that terminate during the taxable year.
In general, § 1.36B-3(f)(1) provides that a taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan is the second lowest-cost silver-level plan available to the taxpayer for self-only or family coverage. However, for taxpayers who reside in certain locations, only one silver-level plan providing such coverage may be available. Section 1.36B-3(f)(8) of the proposed regulations clarifies that if there is only one silver-level qualified health plan offered through the Exchange that would cover all members of the taxpayer's coverage family (whether under one policy or multiple policies), that silver-level plan is used for purposes of the taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan. Similarly, if there is only one stand-alone dental plan offered through the Exchange that would cover all members of the taxpayer's coverage family (whether under one policy or multiple policies), the portion of the premium of that plan that is allocable to pediatric dental benefits is used for purposes of determining the taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan.
Section 301.6011-8 provides that a taxpayer who receives the benefit of advance credit payments must file an income tax return for that taxable year on or before the due date for the return (including extensions of time for filing) and reconcile the advance credit payments. In addition, the regulations under section 36B provide that if advance credit payments are made for coverage of an individual for whom no taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction, the taxpayer who attests to the Exchange to the intention to claim a personal exemption deduction for the individual as part of the determination that the taxpayer is eligible for advance credit payments for coverage of the individual must reconcile the advance credit payments.
Questions have been raised concerning how these two rules apply, and consequently which individual must reconcile advance credit payments, when a taxpayer (a parent, for example) attests that he or she will claim a personal exemption deduction for an individual, the advance payments are made with respect to coverage for the individual, the taxpayer does not claim a personal exemption deduction for the individual, and the individual does not file a tax return for the year. The intent of the existing regulation is that the taxpayer, not the individual for whose coverage advance credit payments were made, must reconcile the advance credit payments in situations in which a taxpayer attests to the intention to claim a personal exemption for the individual and no one claims a personal exemption deduction for the individual. Consequently, the proposed regulations clarify that if advance credit payments are made for coverage of an individual for whom no taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction, the taxpayer who attests to the Exchange to the intention to claim a personal exemption deduction for the individual, not the individual for whose coverage the advance credit payments were made, must file a tax return and reconcile the advance credit payments.
Section 1.36B-3(h) provides that if a qualified health plan covers more than one family under a single policy (for example, a plan covers a taxpayer and the taxpayer's child who is 25 and not a dependent of the taxpayer), the premium tax credit is computed for each applicable taxpayer covered by the plan. In addition, in computing the tax credit for each taxpayer, premiums for the qualified health plan the taxpayers purchase (the enrollment premiums) are allocated to each taxpayer in proportion to the premiums for each taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan.
The existing regulations provide that the Exchange must report the enrollment premiums for each family, but do not specify the manner in which the Exchange must divide the enrollment premiums among the families enrolled in the policy. Consequently, the proposed regulations clarify that when multiple families enroll in a single qualified health plan and advance credit payments are made for the coverage, the enrollment premiums reported by the Exchange for each family is the family's allocable share of the enrollment premiums, which is based on the proportion of each family's applicable benchmark plan premium.
The existing regulations do not specify how the enrollment premiums and benchmark plan premiums are reported in cases in which one or more individuals is enrolled or disenrolled in coverage mid-month. To ensure that this reporting is consistent with the rules for calculating the premium assistance amounts for partial months of coverage, the proposed regulations provide that, if an individual is enrolled in a qualified health plan after the first day of a month, generally no value should be reported for the individual's enrollment premium or benchmark plan premium for that month. However, if an individual's coverage in a qualified health plan is terminated before the last day of a month, or an individual is enrolled in coverage after the first day of a month and the coverage is effective on the date of the individual's birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care, or on the effective date of a court order, an Exchange must report the premium for the applicable benchmark plan for a full month of coverage (excluding the premium allocated to benefits in excess of essential health benefits). In addition, the proposed regulations provide that the Exchange must report the enrollment premiums for the month (excluding the premium allocated to benefits in excess of essential health benefits), reduced by any amount that was refunded due to the plan's termination.
Section 301.6011-2(b) provides that if the use of certain forms, including the Form 1095 series, is required by the applicable regulations or revenue procedures for the purpose of making an information return, the information required by the form must be submitted on magnetic media. Form 1095-A should not have been included in § 301.6011-2 because Form 1095-A is not an information return. Consequently, the proposed regulations replace the general reference in § 301.6011-2(b) to the forms in the 1095 series with specific references to Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, but not Form 1095-A.
Except as otherwise provided, these regulations are proposed to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016. In addition, taxpayers may rely on certain provisions of the proposed regulations for taxable years ending after December 31, 2013, as indicated earlier in this preamble. In addition, rules relating to the benchmark plan described in section 4 of this preamble are proposed to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
Notwithstanding the proposed applicability date, nothing in the proposed regulations is intended to limit any relief for opt-out arrangements provided in Notice 2015-87, Q&A 9, or in section 2.f of the preamble to these proposed regulations (regarding opt-out arrangements provided for in collective bargaining agreements). For purposes of sections 36B and 5000A, although under the proposed regulations amounts made available under an eligible opt-out arrangement are not added to an employee's required contribution, for periods before the final regulations are applicable and, if later, through the end of the most recent plan year beginning before January 1, 2017, an individual who can demonstrate that he or she meets the condition for an opt-out payment under an eligible opt-out arrangement is permitted to treat the opt-out payment as increasing the employee's required contribution.
For purposes of the consequences of these regulations under sections 4980H and 6056 (and in particular Form 1095-C), the regulations regarding opt-out arrangements are proposed to be first applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017,
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations.
It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the information collection required under these regulations is imposed under section 36B. Consistent with the statute, the proposed regulations require a person that provides minimum essential coverage to an individual to file a return with the IRS reporting certain information and to furnish a statement to the responsible individual who enrolled an individual or family in the coverage. These regulations merely provide the method of filing and furnishing returns and statements under section 36B. Moreover, the proposed regulations attempt to minimize the burden associated with this collection of information by limiting reporting to the information that the IRS requires to verify minimum essential coverage and administer tax credits.
Based on these facts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking 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 authors of these proposed regulations are Shareen S. Pflanz and Stephen J. Toomey of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) In general.
(ii) Exceptions.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(4) Special eligibility rules.
(i) Related individuals not claimed as a personal exemption deduction.
(ii) Exchange unable to discontinue advance credit payments.
(A) In general.
(B) Medicaid or CHIP.
(c) * * *
(4) Appeals of coverage eligibility.
(d) * * *
(1) Premium assistance amount.
(2) Examples.
(f) * * *
(3) Silver-level plan not covering pediatric dental benefits.
(4) Family members residing in different locations.
(5) Single or multiple policies needed to cover the family.
(i) Policy covering a taxpayer's family.
(ii) Policy not covering a taxpayer's family.
(6) Plan not available for enrollment.
(7) Benchmark plan terminates or closes to enrollment during the year.
(8) Only one silver-level plan offered to the coverage family.
(9) Effective date.
(10) Examples.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Partial month of coverage.
(A) In general.
(B) Certain mid-month enrollments.
(l)
(m)
(o)
(b) * * *
(6)
(A) The taxpayer or a family member enrolls in a qualified health plan through an Exchange for one or more months during the taxable year;
(B) An Exchange estimates at the time of enrollment that the taxpayer's household income will be at least 100 percent but not more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxable year;
(C) Advance credit payments are authorized and paid for one or more months during the taxable year; and
(D) The taxpayer would be an applicable taxpayer if the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year was at least 100 but not more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size.
(ii)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * * This paragraph (c)(2)(v) does not apply for an individual who, with intentional or reckless disregard for the facts, provides incorrect information to an Exchange for the year of coverage. A reckless disregard of the facts occurs if the taxpayer makes little or no effort to determine whether the information provided to the Exchange is accurate under circumstances that demonstrate a substantial deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe. A disregard of the facts is intentional if the taxpayer knows that information provided to the Exchange is inaccurate.
(3) * * *
(i)
(iii) * * *
(A)
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Taxpayer B is an employee of Employer X, which offers its employees coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan that requires B to contribute $3,000 for self-only coverage. X also makes available to B a payment of $500 if B declines to enroll in the eligible employer-sponsored plan. Therefore, the $500 opt-out payment made available to B under the opt-out arrangement increases B's required contribution under X's eligible employer-sponsored plan from $3,000 to $3,500, regardless of whether B enrolls in the eligible employer-sponsored plan or declines to enroll and is paid the opt-out payment.
The facts are the same as in
The facts are the same as in
Taxpayer D is married and is employed by Employer Z, which offers its employees coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan that requires D to contribute $2,000 for self-only coverage. Z also makes available to D a payment of $300 if D declines to enroll in the eligible employer-sponsored plan and provides reasonable evidence no earlier than the regular annual open enrollment period for the next plan year that D is or will be enrolled in minimum essential coverage through another source (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through the Marketplace); the opt-out arrangement is not conditioned on whether the other members of D's expected tax family have other coverage. This opt-out arrangement is not an eligible opt-out arrangement because it does not condition the right to receive the opt-out payment on D providing reasonable evidence that D and the other members of D's expected tax family have (or will have) minimum essential coverage (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through the Marketplace). Therefore, the $300 opt-out payment made available to D under the opt-out arrangement increases D's required contribution under Z's eligible employer-sponsored plan. D's required contribution for self-only coverage under Z's eligible employer-sponsored plan is $2,300.
(4)
(ii)
(B)
(e)
(2) Paragraph (b)(6)(ii), the last three sentences of paragraph (c)(2)(v), paragraph (c)(3)(i), paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A), the last three sentences of paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(
(c) * * *
(4)
(d) * * *
(1)
(i) The premiums for the month, reduced by any amounts that were refunded, for one or more qualified health plans in which a taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer's family enrolls (enrollment premiums); or
(ii) The excess of the adjusted monthly premium for the applicable benchmark plan (benchmark plan premium) over 1/12 of the product of a taxpayer's household income and the applicable percentage for the taxable year (the taxpayer's contribution amount).
(2)
Taxpayer Q is single and has no dependents. Q enrolls in a qualified health plan with a monthly premium of $400. Q's monthly benchmark plan premium is $500, and his monthly contribution amount is $80. Q's premium assistance amount for a coverage month is $400 (the lesser of $400, Q's monthly enrollment premium, and $420, the difference between Q's monthly benchmark plan premium and Q's contribution amount).
(i) Taxpayer R is single and has no dependents. R enrolls in a qualified health plan with a monthly premium of $450. The difference between R's benchmark plan premium and contribution amount for the month is $420. R's premium assistance amount for a coverage month is $420 (the lesser of $450 and $420).
(ii) The issuer of R's qualified health plan is notified that R died on September 20. The issuer terminates coverage as of that date and refunds the remaining portion of the September enrollment premiums ($150) for R's coverage.
(iii) Under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, R's premium assistance amount for September is the lesser of the enrollment premiums for the month, reduced by any amounts that were refunded ($300 ($450 − $150)) or the difference between the benchmark plan premium and the contribution amount for the month ($420). R's premium assistance amount for September is $300, the lesser of $420 and $300.
The facts are the same as in Example 2 of this paragraph (d)(2), except that the qualified health plan issuer does not refund any enrollment premiums for September. Under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, R's premium assistance amount for September is $420, the lesser of $450 and $420.
(f)
(i) Self-only coverage for a taxpayer—
(A) Who computes tax under section 1(c) (unmarried individuals other than surviving spouses and heads of household) and is not allowed a deduction under section 151 for a dependent for the taxable year;
(B) Who purchases only self-only coverage for one individual; or
(C) Whose coverage family includes only one individual; and
(ii) Family coverage for all other taxpayers.
(2)
(3)
(i) The silver-level qualified health plans that provide pediatric dental benefits offered by the Exchange to the members of the coverage family;
(ii) The lowest-cost silver-level qualified health plan that does not provide pediatric dental benefits offered by the Exchange to the members of the coverage family in conjunction with the lowest-cost portion of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan (within the meaning of section 1311(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 13031(d)(2)(B)(ii)) offered through the Exchange to the members of the coverage family that is properly allocable to pediatric dental benefits determined under guidance issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
(iii) The second-lowest-cost silver-level qualified health plan that does not provide pediatric dental benefits offered by the Exchange to the members of the coverage family in conjunction with the second-lowest-cost portion of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan (within the meaning of section 1311(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 13031(d)(2)(B)(ii)) offered through the Exchange to the members of the coverage family that is properly allocable to pediatric dental benefits determined under guidance issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(4)
(5)
(ii)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(ii) The monthly premiums, and the portion of the premium allocable to pediatric dental benefits, for the two dental plans are as follows:
(iii) Under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, D's applicable benchmark plan is the second lowest cost option among the following offered by the rating area in which D resides: silver-level qualified health plans providing pediatric dental benefits ($1,250 for S1 and $1,200 for S2); the lowest-cost silver-level qualified health plan not providing pediatric dental benefits, in conjunction with the lowest-cost portion of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan properly allocable to pediatric dental benefits ($1,180 for S3 in conjunction with $25 for DP1 = $1,205); and the second lowest cost silver-level qualified health plan not providing pediatric health benefits, in conjunction with the second lowest-cost portion of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan allocable to pediatric dental benefits ($1,180 for S3 in conjunction with $40 for DP2 = $1,220). Under paragraph (f)(8) of this section, S3, as the lone silver-level qualified health plan not providing pediatric dental benefits offered by the Exchange, is treated as the second lowest-cost silver-level qualified health plan not providing pediatric dental benefits. Under paragraph (e) of this section, the adjusted monthly premium for D's applicable benchmark plan is $1,205.
(ii) Because no one in D's coverage family is eligible for pediatric dental benefits, $0 of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan is allocable to pediatric dental benefits in determining A's applicable benchmark plan. Consequently, under paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this section, D's applicable benchmark plan is the second lowest-cost option among the following options offered by the rating area in which D resides: silver-level qualified health plans providing pediatric dental benefits ($1,210 for S1 and $1,190 for S2), the lowest-cost silver-level qualified health plan not providing pediatric dental benefits, in conjunction with the lowest-cost portion of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan properly allocable to pediatric dental benefits ($1,180 for S3 in conjunction with $0 for DP1 = $1,180), and the second lowest cost silver-level qualified health plan not providing pediatric health benefits, in conjunction with the second lowest-cost portion of the premium for a stand-alone dental plan allocable to pediatric dental benefits ($1,180 for S3 in conjunction with $0 for DP2 = $1,180). Under paragraph (e) of this section, the adjusted monthly premium for D's applicable benchmark plan is $1,180.
(ii) Under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, because the members of N's coverage family reside in different locations, the monthly premium for N's applicable benchmark plan is the sum of $1,000, the monthly premiums for the applicable benchmark plan for N, O, and P, who reside together, and $220, the monthly applicable benchmark plan premium for Q, who resides in a different location than N, O, and P. Consequently, the premium for N's applicable benchmark plan is $1,220.
(ii) Under paragraph (f)(5) of this section, Issuer C's silver-level plan that covers R, S, and T under one policy ($1,200 monthly premium) and Issuer A's and Issuer B's silver-level plans that do not cover R, S and T under one policy are considered in determining R's and S's applicable benchmark plan. In addition, under paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this section, in determining R's and S's applicable benchmark plan, the premium taken into account for Issuer A's plan is $1,450 (the aggregate premiums for self-only policies covering R ($400), S ($450), and T ($600) and the premium taken into account for Issuer B's plan is $1,000 (the aggregate premiums for self-only policies covering R ($250), S ($300), and T ($450). Consequently, R's and S's applicable benchmark plan is the Issuer C silver-level plan covering R's and S's coverage family and the premium for their applicable benchmark plan is $1,200.
(ii) Under paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this section, because multiple policies are required to cover U and V, the members of U's coverage family who reside together in Location 1, the premium taken into account in determining U's benchmark plan is $1,000, the sum of the premiums for the second-lowest aggregate cost of self-only policies covering U ($400) and V ($600) offered by the Exchange to U and V for the rating area in which U and V reside. Under paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section, because all silver-level plans offered by the Exchange in which W and X reside cover W and X under a single policy, the premium for W and X's coverage that is taken into account in determining U's benchmark plan is $500, the second-lowest cost silver policy covering W and X that is offered by the Exchange for the rating area in which W and X reside. Under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, because the members of U's coverage family reside in different locations, U's monthly benchmark plan premium is $1,500, the sum of the premiums for the applicable benchmark plans for each group of family members residing in different locations ($1,000 for U and V, who reside in Location 1, plus $500 for W and X, who reside in Location 2).
(ii) Under paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(7) of this section, the silver-level plan that BB and CC use to determine their applicable benchmark plan for all coverage months during the year is Plan 2. The applicable benchmark plan that DD uses to determine DD's applicable benchmark plan is Plan 3, because Plan 2 is not open to enrollment through the Exchange when the DD family enrolls.
(n)
(2) Paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(2) apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016. Paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3), (f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(8), and (f)(9) of this section apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018. Paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(2) of § 1.36B-3 as contained in 26 CFR part I edition revised as of April 1, 2016, apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013, and beginning before January 1, 2017. Paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3), (f)(4), (f)(6), and (f)(7) of § 1.36B-3 as contained in 26 CFR part I edition revised as of April 1, 2016, apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013, and beginning before January 1, 2019.
(c) * * *
(3) —* * *
(i) * * * If advance credit payments are made for coverage under the plan, the enrollment premiums reported to each family under paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of this section are the premiums allocated to the family under § 1.36B-3(h) (allocating enrollment premiums to each taxpayer in proportion to the premiums for each taxpayer's applicable benchmark plan).
(iii)
(B)
(h)
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G)
(
(
(
(
(
(c)
(2) Paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(G) of § 1.5000A-3 applies to months beginning after December 31, 2016.
(a)
(b)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On March 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to increase the highest patient limit for qualified physicians to treat opioid use disorder under section 303(g)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). On July 6, 2016, HHS published a final rule based on the NPRM but delayed finalizing the reporting requirements outlined in the NPRM. In this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), HHS seeks further comment on the same reporting requirements outlined in the NPRM. These reporting requirements would require annual reporting by practitioners who are approved to treat up to 275 patients under subpart F to help HHS ensure compliance with the requirements of the “Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders” final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on August 8, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0930-AA22, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jinhee Lee, Pharm.D., Public Health Advisor, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 240-276-0545, Email address:
The purpose of this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) is to solicit additional comment on the proposed reporting requirements in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) March 30, 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders under section 303(g)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (81 FR 17639). These requirements will assist HHS in ensuring practitioner compliance with the requirements of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
These proposed regulatory provisions, which amend § 8.635 of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F, would establish annual reporting requirements for practitioners who are approved to treat up to 275 patients under 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
A summary of the anticipated impact of the reporting requirements, along with the other provisions of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F, was provided in the NPRM, dated March 30, 2016. Please see the NPRM, I. Executive Summary, Paragraph C (Summary of Impacts) for a summary of impacts of the reporting requirements in the context of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
HHS invites interested parties to submit comments on all aspects of this proposal. All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable and/or confidential information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received as soon as possible after they have been received on the following Web site:
Comments received before the close of the comment period will also be available for public inspection, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of the proposed rule, at the headquarters of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, call 240-276-1660.
We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the
On March 30, 2016 HHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders” in the
The proposed regulatory provisions in this SNPRM will help HHS assess practitioner compliance with the requirements of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
In the NPRM, HHS proposed 42 CFR, part 8, subpart F, § 8.635 to describe the reporting requirements for practitioners whose Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved under § 8.625. The purpose of the reporting requirements is to help HHS assess practitioner compliance with the additional responsibilities of practitioners who are authorized to treat up to the higher patient limit, as outlined in the MAT final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
In addition, HHS seeks comment on the following questions:
Are there different or additional elements that should be reported in order to assist HHS in ensuring compliance with the final rule?
Are there ways in which some elements can be combined that will lessen the burden for reporting practitioners while maintaining the important function of collecting information that ensure compliance with the final rule?
Are there other ways that HHS can collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with the final rule?
Would it be less burdensome to report on the number of patients in treatment for each month of the reporting period that:
(i) Were provided counseling services at the same location as the practitioner, and how frequently those patients utilized the counseling services;
(ii) the practitioner referred for counseling services at a different location?
Would it be less burdensome to report on the number of patients at the end of the reporting year who had terminated utilization of covered medications?
Are there other suggested changes that would be less burdensome while maintaining the important function of collecting information that ensure compliance with the final rule?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), agencies are required to
1. Whether the information collection is necessary and useful to carry out the proper functions of the agency;
2. The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection burden;
3. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
Under the PRA, the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to meet the information collection requirements referenced in this section are to be considered in rulemaking. We explicitly seek, and will consider, public comment on our assumptions as they relate to the PRA requirements summarized in this section. This proposed rule includes changes to information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements, as defined under the PRA (5 CFR part 1320). Some of the provisions would involve changes from the information collections set out in the previous regulations.
Information collection requirements would be:
Annual burden estimates for these requirements are summarized in the following table:
For more detailed estimates, please refer to the public docket, which includes a copy of the draft supporting statement submitted as part of the NPRM and associated with this information collection.
HHS has examined the impact of this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and included it in the NPRM published on March 30, 2016. Please refer to the NPRM for this analysis (81 FR 17639).
Health professions, Methadone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, HHS proposes to amend 42 CFR part 8 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 823; 42 U.S.C. 257a, 290aa(d), 290dd-2, 300x-23, 300x-27(a), 300y-11.
(a) All practitioners whose Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved under § 8.625 must submit reports to SAMHSA, along with documentation and data, as requested by SAMHSA, to demonstrate compliance with § 8.620, applicable eligibility requirements specified in § 8.610, and all attestation requirements in § 8.620(b).
(b) Reporting requirements may include a request for information regarding:
(1) The average monthly caseload of patients receiving buprenorphine-based MAT, per year.
(2) Percentage of active buprenorphine patients (patients in treatment as of reporting date) that received psychosocial or case management services (either by direct provision or by referral) in the past year due to:
(i) Treatment initiation.
(ii) Change in clinical status.
(3) Percentage of patients who had a prescription drug monitoring program query in the past month; and
(4) Number of patients at the end of the reporting year who:
(i) Have completed an appropriate course of treatment with buprenorphine in order for the patient to achieve and sustain recovery.
(ii) Are not being seen by the provider due to referral by the provider to a more or less intensive level of care.
(iii) No longer desire to continue use of buprenorphine.
(iv) Are no longer receiving buprenorphine for reasons other than paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(c) The report must be submitted within twelve months after the date that a practitioner's Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved under § 8.625, and annually thereafter.
(d) SAMHSA may check reports from practitioners prescribing under the higher patient limit against other existing data sources, such as PDMPs. If discrepancies between reported information and other existing data are identified, SAMHSA may require additional documentation from
(e) Failure to submit reports under this section, or deficient reports, may be deemed a failure to satisfy the requirements for a patient limit increase, and may result in the withdrawal of SAMHSA's approval of the practitioner's Request for Patient Limit Increase.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew the approved information collection regarding the accredited laboratory contact update form. The approval for this information collection will expire on December 31, 2016.
Submit comments on or before September 6, 2016.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
In addition, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 138-138i) provides authority for the accreditation of non-Federal laboratories. Under these provisions, FSIS accredits non-Federal laboratories as eligible to perform analysis on official regulatory meat and poultry samples.
Non-Federal laboratories that are part of the FSIS Accredited Laboratory Program complete the FSIS Accredited Laboratory Program Annual Contact Update Form annually. FSIS will use the information collected by the form to maintain necessary contact information for responsibly connected personnel at the laboratories (see 9 CFR 439.20(e) and 9 CFR 439.1(w)). The completed FSIS Accredited Laboratory Program Annual Contact Update Form will also inform the Agency if a laboratory, or responsibly connected person or entity, has been charged, indicted, or convicted of any crime listed in 9 CFR 439.52. If a laboratory or a responsibly connected person or entity has been charged or indicted of such a crime, FSIS will suspend the laboratory from the Accredited Laboratory Program (9 CFR 439.52). If a laboratory or a responsibly connected person or entity has been convicted of such a crime, FSIS will revoke the laboratory's accreditation (9 CFR 439.53).
The approval for this information collection will expire on December 31, 2016. There are no changes to the existing information collection. FSIS has made the following estimates on the basis of an information collection assessment.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew the approved information collection regarding industry responses to noncompliance records. The approval for this information collection will expire on December 31, 2016.
Submit comments on or before September 6, 2016.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS is requesting a renewal of the previously approved information collection addressing paperwork requirements related to the collection of information on official meat or poultry establishment and egg products plant responses to noncompliance records. The noncompliance record, FSIS Form 5400-4, serves as FSIS's official record of noncompliance with one or more regulatory requirements. Inspection program personnel use the form to document their findings and provide written notification of the official establishment's or plant's failure to comply with regulatory requirements. The establishment or plant management receives a copy of the form and has an opportunity to respond in writing using the noncompliance record form.
The OMB approval of this information collection will expire on December 31, 2016. The number of estimated burden hours for this requested renewal has decreased because of a decrease in the
FSIS has made the following estimates on the basis of an information collection assessment:
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage Borough Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Girdwood, Alaska. 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 August 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.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 Glacier Ranger District Office, 145 Forest Station Road Girdwood, Alaska 99587. A conference line will be available, if you would like to attend the meeting via conference call, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Glacier Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Nancy O'Brien, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-424-4722 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 discuss and vote on project proposals.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people
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 requested 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; (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 August 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, 20503. 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 displays a currently valid OMB control number.
U.S. 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 that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for the purpose of discussing civil rights topics emerging from testimony regarding civil asset forfeiture practices in the state.
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-438-5524, conference ID: 3344476. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plans. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-
Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following 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 Carolyn Allen 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 via
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Carolyn Allen at
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission business meeting.
Friday, July 15, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Latrice Foshee, Acting Media Advisor at telephone: (202) 376-8371 or email:
This business meeting is open to the public. If you would like to listen to the business meeting, please contact the above for the call-in information. Persons with hearing impairments, please contact the above for how to access the Federal Relay Service for the meeting.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of a revised Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NOAA-12, Marine Mammals, Endangered and Threatened Species, Permits and Authorizations, Applicants.
This notice announces the Department of Commerce's (Department's) proposal to amend a System of Records under the 1974 Privacy Act. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is amending their system of records for marine mammal and threatened and endangered species permit and authorization programs. Information will be collected from individuals and entities under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. This record system is necessary to identify permit and authorization applicants and to evaluate the qualifications of the applicants.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016. Unless comments are received, the amended system of records will become effective as proposed on August 17, 2016. If comments are received, the Department will publish a subsequent notice in the
Comments may be mailed to Amy Sloan, Deputy Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, F/PR1 Room 13824, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Amy Sloan (Phone: 301-427-8401; Email:
NMFS is amending its system of applicant records for use with marine mammal and threatened and endangered species permit and authorization programs to make minor administrative updates including updating addresses where records are located and how records are stored. The Marine Mammal Protection Act, Fur Seal Act, and Endangered Species Act prohibit certain actions affecting marine mammals and endangered and threatened species, with limited exceptions. Permits involving marine mammals and endangered and threatened species can be obtained for scientific research, enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, commercial and educational photography, and import and capture for public display. Authorizations can be obtained for scientific research that involves minimal disturbance. Also U.S. citizens may request and obtain, authorizations for the incidental taking of marine mammals for specified activities other than commercial fishing. Owners of a commercial vessel or non-vessel gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery must obtain a marine mammal authorization certificate from NOAA Fisheries, or a designated agent, to lawfully incidentally take a marine mammal in a commercial fishery. NMFS collects information from individuals in order to issue, amend, or renew permits or authorizations.
COMMERCE/NOAA-12, Marine Mammals, Endangered and Threatened Species, Permits and Authorizations Applicants.
None.
a. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
b. NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276.
c. NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
d. NMFS, West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
e. NMFS, West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
f. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037.
g. NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Ford Island Honolulu at 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
h. NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
Researchers, wildlife managers, photographers, holders of marine mammals in captivity, corporations, partnerships, associations, organizations, Federal, state, local or tribal governments and other members of the public seeking exceptions to prohibited activities related to marine mammals and endangered and threatened species, and owners of commercial fishing vessels engaged in Category I or II fisheries seeking an exception to prohibited activities on marine mammals and endangered and threatened species.
For the marine mammal authorization program (MMAP), if a commercial fisherman has a state or Federal fishery license, they are not required to submit information to NMFS. Their registration is automatically renewed by mail and their registration information is not stored in this system, but in the applicable regional Sustainable Fisheries Permit Office. For those without a state or Federal fishery license, the following information is included: Name, address, and telephone number of the owner(s) of a vessel or non-vessel gear and name and address of the operator if other than the owner; name and length of the vessel, home port, United States Coast Guard (USCG) documentation number or State registration number, State commercial license number of the fishing vessel which will operate under the authorization, and for a non-vessel fishery, a description of the gear and state commercial license number; a list of the fishery(s) in which the fisher will be engaged; for an individual, social security number and date of birth of the owner(s) of a vessel or non-vessel gear; and for a business, corporation name, employer identification number and date of incorporation. Any time there is an incidental or intentional mortality or injury to a marine mammal during commercial fishing activities, the following information must be submitted by all authorized fisheries (electronically or by mail): Name of vessel owner/operator or permit holder, mailing address, vessel name, fishery gear type and target species, and information about the marine mammal mortality/injury incident.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361
This information will allow NMFS to identify applicants and holders of permits and authorizations, identify vessel owners, evaluate requests by applicants, or agency actions, related to the issuance, renewal, revocation, suspension or modification of a permit or authorization.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department. These records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed as a routine use as stated below. The Department will, when so authorized, make the determination as to the relevancy of a record prior to its decision to disclose a document.
1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.
3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requires disclosure thereof.
5. A record in this system may be disclosed to the Department of Homeland Security for the purposes of determining the admissibility of certain marine mammal or threatened or endangered species or species parts imports into the United States.
6. A record in this system will be disclosed to the Department of Treasury for the purpose of reporting and recouping delinquent debts owed the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 7701 (this applies to MMAP permittees only).
7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
9. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.
10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
12. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: For personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.
13. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (
None.
Online application system (Authorizations and Permits for Protected Species only for scientific research permits and authorizations;
Records are organized and retrieved by NMFS internal identification number or permit or authorization number; name of entity or vessel name or identification number. Records can be accessed by any file element or any combination thereof.
The paper systems of records are stored in buildings with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facilities must register with security guards and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. The electronic systems of records are stored on the agency's network servers. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password.
All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398; and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with National Archive and Records Administration regulations
For records at location a.: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS Headquarters, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
For records at location b.: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276.
For records at location c.: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
For records at location d.: Office of Protected Resources, West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
For records at locations e and f.: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
For records at location g.: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Ford Island Honolulu at 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
For records at location h.: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about them is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the national or regional Privacy Act Officer:
Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 9719, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13706, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Privacy Act Officer, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, Ford Island Honolulu at 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska, 99802-1668.
Written requests must be signed by the requesting individual. Requestor must make the request in writing and provide his/her name, address, and date of the request and record sought. All such requests must comply with the inquiry provisions of the Department's Privacy Act rules which appear at 15 CFR part 4, appendix A.
Requests for access to records maintained in this system of records should be addressed to the same address given in the Notification Procedure section.
The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned are provided for in 15 CFR part 4, appendix A.
Information in this system will be collected from individuals or entities applying for a permit or authorization.
None.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 28, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the CIT or the Court) issued final judgment in
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On March 16, 2009, the Department published its
On September 27, 2010, the Court remanded this matter.
Upon consideration of the
On May 31, 2013, in
On February 18, 2015, in
On April 28, 2016, the Court sustained the Department's
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
For Since Hardware, the cash deposit rate will remain the rate established in the
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by Since Hardware using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) with regard to Sailun Jinyu Group (HONG KONG) Co., Limited (Sailun Jinyu HK). We preliminarily determine that Sailun Jinyu HK is the successor-in-interest to Jinyu International Holding Co., Limited (Jinyu HK) for purposes of determining AD liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.
On August 10, 2015, the Department published in the
The products covered by the scope of this order are passenger vehicle and light truck tires. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a passenger vehicle or light truck size designation. Tires covered by these orders may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial, and they may be intended for sale to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have the following prefixes or suffix in their tire size designation, which also appears on the sidewall of the tire:
Prefix designations:
Suffix letter designations:
All tires with a “P” or “LT” prefix, and all tires with an “LT” suffix in their sidewall markings are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack a “P” or “LT” prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set out below.
Passenger vehicle and light truck tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope.
Specifically excluded from the scope are the following types of tires:
(1) Racing car tires; such tires do not bear the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall and may be marked with “ZR” in size designation;
(2) new pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a size that is not listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book;
(3) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires;
(4) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;
(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) the size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in Table PCT-1B (“T” Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) the designation “T” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation, and,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed is 81 MPH or a “M” rating;
(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire (ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following conditions:
(a) the size designation molded on the tire's sidewall is listed in the ST sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) the designation “ST” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation,
(c) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “For Trailer Service Only” or “For Trailer Use Only”,
(d) the load index molded on the tire's sidewall meets or exceeds those load indexes listed in the Tire and Rim Association Year Book for the relevant ST tire size, and
(e) either
(i) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 81 MPH or an “M” rating; or
(ii) the tire's speed rating molded on the sidewall is 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and in either case the tire's maximum pressure and maximum load limit are molded on the sidewall and either
(1) both exceed the maximum pressure and maximum load limit for any tire of the same size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book; or
(2) if the maximum cold inflation pressure molded on the tire is less than any cold inflation pressure listed for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, the maximum load limit molded on the tire is higher than the maximum load limit listed at that cold inflation pressure for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book;
(7) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) the size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in the off-the-road, agricultural, industrial or ATV section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) in addition to any size designation markings, the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “Not For Highway Service” or “Not for Highway Use”,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 55 MPH or a “G” rating, and
(d) the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design.
The products covered by the orders are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50, 4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.45, 8708.70.45.60, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Sailun Jinyu HK supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Jinyu HK demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review.
In accordance with the above-referenced regulation, the Department is initiating a CCR to determine whether Sailun Jinyu HK is the successor-in-interest to Jinyu HK. When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results for a CCR concurrently.
In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base.
In its February 23, 2016, and April 18, 2016 submissions, Sailun Jinyu HK provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-interest to Jinyu HK. Sailun Jinyu HK states that there were no changes to the company's ownership, employees, managers, customers, or suppliers. To support its claims, Sailun Jinyu HK submitted the following documents: (1) A copy of Jinyu HK Internal Work Approval Sheet, dated October 29, 2015 explaining the reason for the name change from Jinyu HK to Sailun Jinyu HK; (2) a copy of a Department memorandum regarding Sailun Group Co., Ltd.'s Affiliation Single Entity Status, dated January 14, 2015; (3) a Notice of Change of Company Name, dated December 4, 2015 filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry; (4) a Certificate of Change of Name, dated December 21, 2015, issued by the Hong Kong Companies Registry; (5) business registrations for both Jinyu HK (dated October 24, 2015) and Sailun Jinyu HK (dated October 24, 2015); (6) a listing of the company's customers before and after its name change; and (7) a letter sent to all customers explaining the name change.
Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily find that Sailun Jinyu HK is the successor-in-interest to Jinyu HK. We find that Sailun Jinyu HK operates as the same business entity as Jinyu HK and that its ownership, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed as a result of its name change. Thus, we preliminarily find that Sailun Jinyu HK should receive the same AD cash deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as Jinyu HK, its predecessor company.
Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend entries of subject merchandise exported by Sailun Jinyu HK at Jinyu HK's cash deposit rate, effective on the publication date of our final results.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.
Interested parties that wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 14 days of publication of this notice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstance review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.
We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for nominations.
This notice is a call for nominees for the U.S. Delegation to the October 2016 International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is (are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations.
The IWC is holding its 66th meeting from October 20-28, 2016, at the Convention Center of the Grand Hotel Bernardin in Portorož, Slovenia. All written nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC meeting must be received by August 26, 2016.
All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC meeting should be addressed to Mr. Ryan Wulff, Deputy U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, and sent to Jordan Carduner via email:
Jordan Carduner at
The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for discharging the domestic obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. IWC Commissioner has responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. The U.S. IWC Commissioner is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and by other agencies. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is (are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental position is selected for the U.S. Delegation.
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) will meet via webinar to discuss potential management options for the northern anchovy. The meeting is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will take place from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, August 3, 2016.
The meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.
Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.
The primary purpose of the webinar is to solicit comments and questions on a draft white paper being developed by the Pacific Council's CPSMT. The Council will consider the white paper at its September 15-20 meeting in Boise, ID. Public comments during the webinar
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR Data Best Practices Standing Panel Webinar.
The SEDAR Data Best Practices Panel will develop, review, and evaluate best practice recommendations for SEDAR Data Workshops. See
The SEDAR Data Best Practices Standing Panel webinar will be held on Thursday, July 21, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The SEDAR Data Best Practices Standing Panel is charged with developing, reviewing, and evaluating best practice recommendations for SEDAR Data Workshops. This will be the second meeting of this group. The items of discussion for this webinar are as follows:
1. Finalize terms of reference that specify the Panel's purpose and approach.
2. Continue discussions on SEDAR Data Best Practices living document.
3. Discuss Data Issue Inventory Format
4. Other business.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801) provides that the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for the conservation and management of marine fisheries resources in Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 miles) of the United States (U.S.). NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region—Northwest manages the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Washington, Oregon, and California under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The regulations implementing the Pacific Groundfish Fishery require that those vessels participating in the limited entry fishery to be registered to a valid limited entry permit. Participation in the fishery and access to a limited entry permit has been restricted to control the overall harvest capacity. The regulations implementing the limited entry program are found at 50 CFR part 660, subpart G.
NOAA Fisheries seeks comment on the extension of permit information collections required for: (1) Renewal and transfer of Pacific Coast Groundfish limited entry permits; (2) implementation of certain provisions of the sablefish permit stacking program as provided for at 50 CFR 660.231 and 660.25; and (3) issuing and fulfilling the terms and conditions of certain exempted fishing permits (EFPs).
Also, NOAA Fisheries requires an information collection to implement certain aspects of the sablefish permit stacking program which prevents excessive fleet consolidation. As part of the annual renewal process, NOAA Fisheries requires a corporation or partnership that owns or holds (as vessel owner) a sablefish endorsed permit to provide a complete ownership interest form listing all individuals with ownership interest in the entity. Similarly, any sablefish endorsed permit transfer involving registration of a business entity requires an ownership interest form if either the permit owner or vessel owner is a corporation or partnership. This information is used to determine if individuals own or hold sablefish permits in excess of the limit of 3 permits. Also, for transfer requests made during the sablefish primary season (April 1st through October 31st), the permit owner is required to report the remaining tier pounds not yet harvested on the sablefish endorsed permit at the time of transfer.
Applicants for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) must submit written information that allows NOAA Fisheries and the Pacific Fishery Management Council to evaluate the proposed exempted fishing project activities and weigh the benefits and costs of the proposed activities. The Council makes a recommendation on each EFP application and for successful applicants, NOAA Fisheries issues the EFPs which contains terms and conditions for the project including various reporting requirements. The information included in an application is specified at 50 CFR 600.745(b)(2) and the Council Operating Procedure #19. Permit holders are required to file preseason harvest plans, interim and/or final summary reports on the results of the project and in some cases individual vessels and other permit holders are required to provide data reports (logbooks and/or catch reports The results of EFPs are commonly used to explore ways to reduce effort on depressed stocks, encourage innovation and efficiency in the fishery, provide access to constrained stocks which directly measuring the bycatch associated with such strategies and evaluate/revise current and proposed management measures.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S Department of Commerce.
Notice of a New Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NOAA-21, Financial Systems Division.
This notice announces the Department of Commerce's (Department's) proposal for a new system of records under the Privacy Act. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is creating a new system of records for the Financial Services Division's financial assistance programs. Information will be collected from individuals and businesses under the authority of title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended and codified, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. This new record system is necessary to determine whether applicants for program financing, Fishermen's Contingency claims, or participants in Capital Construction Fund accounts or Fishery Capacity Reduction programs are eligible and are creditworthy.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016. Unless comments are received, the new system of records will become effective as proposed on August 17, 2016. If comments are received, the Department will publish a subsequent notice in the
Comments may be mailed to: Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
NMFS will use the information contained in this system of records to determine whether applicants for the Fisheries Financing Program (FFP) are both
The information collection is requested from individuals and businesses under the authority of title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended and codified, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. The information collection includes collecting each applicant's Tax Identification Number (TIN), either an Employer Identification Number (EIN) or Social Security Number (SSN). Collection of a TIN is required under 31 U.S.C. 7701. The primary purpose for requesting the TIN is to correctly identify the applicant for background and credit investigations and program eligibility, and may be used to report or collect any delinquent amounts arising out of an applicant's relationship with the Government.
COMMERCE/NOAA-21, Financial Services Division.
Moderate.
a. NMFS Northeast Financial Services Branch, MB51, 55 Great Republic Drive, Suite 02-700, Gloucester, MA 01930-2209.
b. NMFS Southeast Financial Services Branch, MB52, 263-13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432.
c. NMFS Northwest Financial Services Branch, MB53, 7600 Sand Point Way NW., Bin C15700, Building #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
d. NMFS Financial Services Division, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Applicants for Fisheries Finance Program financial assistance, including: Direct loans for vessels, shoreside facilities, aquaculture, mariculture, and individual fishing quota (IFQ) loans; applicants for Capital Construction Fund (CCF) accounts; fishers and fish buyers participating in Capacity Reduction loan (Buyback) programs; and claimants under the Fishermen's Contingency Fund.
The system will include general personal and financial data including: The loan applicant's identity (including full name, address, and, as applicable, the SSN or EIN); the amount of financing applied for, the purpose of the loan; an appraisal of the vessel, facility or project being financed; Coast Guard documentation or Abstracts of title to vessels; income and financial information, including the applicant's last three Federal tax returns; LLC or Partnership agreements; a list of creditors and buyers with relevant credit terms; identification of authorized representatives (accountant, attorney, insurance agent); loan servicing actions and financial transactions; and the applicant's legal and credit history (status regarding bankruptcy, litigation, delinquency on debt, etc.). This information will be collected and maintained by the Financial Services Division and its branches.
The system will also include the CCF account holder's identity (including full name, address, and as applicable, the SSN or EIN); the nature of the account, banking information, the description of the project for which the account is to be created; income, business and financial information including the applicant and/or account holder's tax return, LLC and Partnership agreements; Coast Guard documentation, bills of sale, mortgages, etc.; identification of authorized representatives (accountant, attorney); and reports of account activity including all deposits and withdrawals. The system of records will include FCF claimants' identity (including full name, address, and, as applicable, the SSN or EIN); Vessel name and characteristics; fishing results for the three most recent trips; receipts for gear and equipment replaced; and information about the claimant's prior claims. The system of records will include Capacity Reduction program participants' identity (including full name, address, and, as applicable, the SSN or EIN); processor number, fish ticket information, receipt and payment information, and banking information.
Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as amended and codified, 46 U.S.C. 1177 and 46 U.S.C. 53701
This information will allow NMFS to identify applicants and program participants and evaluate them for Financial Services Division financial assistance.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside of the Department. These records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed as a routine use as stated below. The Department will, when so authorized, make the determination as to the relevancy of a record prior to its decision to disclose a document.
1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, contract or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interests of the Department.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed in the course
3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requires disclosure thereof.
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
5. A record in this system will be disclosed to the Department of Treasury for the purpose of reporting and recouping delinquent debts owed to the United States pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) It is suspected or confirmed that the security of confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
8. A record or information in this system of records may be disclosed to private sector appraisers, marine architects, attorneys, accountants, banks, lending institutions, real estate agents, brokers, title companies, state or local agencies, commercial registries, credit bureaus, rating agencies, and/or other persons and entities for the purpose of making credit and eligibility evaluations; lender due diligence investigations; CCF account validations; FCF claim adjustments; and/or the creation, attachment, perfection, maintenance, realization, or foreclosure of security interests.
9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
10. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
11. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (
Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398; and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NITS SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.
Individuals or businesses seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the NOAA Privacy Act Officer: Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315 East West
Written requests must be signed by the requesting individual. Requestor must make the request in writing and provide his/her name, address, and date of the request and the nature of the record sought. All such requests must comply with the inquiry provisions of the Department's Privacy Act rules which appear at 15 CFR part 4, Appendix A.
Requests for access to records maintained in this system of records should be addressed to the same address given in the Notification section above.
The Department's rules for access, for contesting content, and for appealing initial determinations by the individual or business concerned are provided for in 15 CFR part 4, Appendix A.
Information in this system will be collected from individuals and businesses applying for Financial Systems Division financial assistance.
None.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 3/25/2016 (81 FR 16145-16146) and 6/3/2016 (81 FR 35749-35750), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
On 6/3/2016 (81 FR 35749-35750), 6/10/2016 (81 FR 37581-37582), and 6/17/2016 (81 FR 39630), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and/or service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete services previously furnished by such agencies.
8/7/2016.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of Defense.
Notice of availability; notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Department of Defense (DoD) announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the environmental planning process for the East Campus Integration Program at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland (hereafter referred to as Fort Meade). The DoD proposes to continue to develop operational complex and headquarters space at the National Security Agency's (NSA) East Campus on Fort Meade for use by NSA and the Intelligence Community. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide facilities that are fully supportive of the Intelligence Community's function and to continue to integrate the East Campus with the NSA Main Campus. The need for the action is to meet mission requirements, both internally at the NSA and within the Intelligence Community.
This notice announces a 45-day comment period and provides information on how to participate in the public review process. The public comment period for the Draft EIS will officially end 45 days after publication of the Notice of Availability in the
There will be an open house at 4:30 p.m. followed by a public meeting from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on August 3, 2016. The public meeting may end earlier or later than the stated time depending on the number of persons wishing to speak. All materials that are submitted in response to the Draft EIS should be received by August 22, 2016 to provide sufficient time to be considered in preparation of the Final EIS.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for your review at the Medal of Honor Memorial Library, 4418 Llewellyn Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 20755; the Glen Burnie Regional Library, 1010 Eastway, Glen Burnie, MD 21060; the Odenton Regional Library, 1325 Annapolis Road, Odenton, MD 21113; and the Severn Library, 2624 Annapolis Road, Severn, Maryland 21144. You may also call 301-688-2970 or send an email to
The open house and public meeting will be held at the Severn Library, 2624 Annapolis Road, Severn, Maryland 21144. Verbal and written comments will be accepted at the public meeting. You can also submit written comments to “East Campus Integration Program EIS” c/o HDR, 2600 Park Tower Drive, Suite 100, Vienna, VA 22180 or submit by email to
Mr. Jeffrey Williams at 301-688-2970, or email
Alternatives identified include four options for emergency power generation and various pollution control systems, two options for building heating systems, four options for locations of parking facilities, and acquisition of additional space at two existing, offsite leased locations. Emergency power generation alternatives are generators and combined generators and combustion turbines. Building heating system alternatives are packaged boilers and a hybrid building heating system consisting of packaged boilers and ground source heat pumps. Parking facility alternatives consist of at least three of the following locations: East Campus Parking Structure 2, Bravo parking lot, N8/N9 parking lot, and Building 9817. Use of multi-level parking facilities were considered in lieu of surface parking. In conjunction with some construction and demolition on the East Campus, lease of space outside of Fort Meade at National Business Park and Annapolis Junction Business Park (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively) were considered. The No Action Alternative (not undertaking the East Campus Integration Program) is also analyzed in detail.
Generally, construction and demolition would result in some ground disturbance and increased traffic congestion at intersections near the installation and proximal to the build
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at local repositories and by request (see
The DoD will consider all comments received and then prepare the Final EIS. As with the Draft EIS, DoD will announce the availability of the Final EIS and once again give you an opportunity for review and comment.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DoD.
Notice of Intent.
Pursuant to the section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Municipality of Tinian (Municipality)/Commonwealth Ports Authority (CPA) gives notice that an Integrated Feasibility/Environmental Impact Statement (F/EIS) is being prepared for the Proposed Tinian Harbor Modifications Project, Island of Tinian, CNMI. This project is authorized under section 209 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874) and will consider the implementation of navigation improvements at Tinian Harbor.
In order to be considered in the Draft F/EIS, comments and suggestions should be received within 30 days after the last public scoping meeting. Two public scoping meetings will be held in Saipan and Tinian in mid/late July 2016. A separate notice will be published for meeting times and places.
Mail written comments concerning this notice to: Mr. Milton Yoshimoto, Project Manager, Civil and Public Works Branch, Honolulu District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil and Public Works Branch, Bldg 230, Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address and the project title in the subject line.
Mr. Milton Yoshimoto, Civil and Public Works Branch, Honolulu District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bldg 230, Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858, (808) 835-4034, Email:
In accordance with NEPA, the Corps intends to prepare an F/EIS report. The primary Federal actions under consideration are: (1) Navigation improvement measures that expand the turning basin; (2) surge reduction measures by constructing protective structures at both harbors; and (3) dredging harbor sediments to allow larger vessels access to the harbor. The F/EIS reports shall meet the requirements of NEPA, including all applicable federal regulations implementing those statutes.
Evaluation will examine the costs and benefits of this project, as well as the environmental impacts of modifying the maintained dimensions of the existing harbor. The purpose of this effort is to conduct a study to assess the technical, environmental and economic feasibility in the implementation of navigation improvement at Tinian Harbor.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the section 102(2) (C) of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CMNI), Municipality of Rota (Municipality)/Commonwealth Ports Authority (CPA) gives notice that an Integrated Feasibility/Environmental Impact Statement (F/EIS) report is being prepared for the Proposed Rota Harbor Modifications Project, Island of Rota, CNMI. This project is authorized under section 209 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874) and will consider the implementation of navigation improvements at Rota Harbor.
In order to be considered in the Draft F/EIS, comments and suggestions should be received within 30 days after the last public scoping meeting. Two public scoping meetings will be held in Saipan and Rota in mid/late July 2016. A separate notice will be published for meeting times and places.
Mail written comments concerning this notice to: Mr. Milton Yoshimoto, Project Manager, Civil and Public Works Branch, Honolulu District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bldg. 230, Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address and the project title in the subject line.
Mr. Milton Yoshimoto, Project Manager, Civil and Public Works Branch, Honolulu District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bldg. 230, Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858, (808) 835-4034, E-Mail:
In accordance with NEPA, the Corps intends to prepare an F/EIS report. The primary Federal actions under consideration are: (1) Navigation improvement measures that expand the federal turning basin; (2) surge reduction measures by constructing protective structures at both harbors; and (3) expand and deepen the harbor basin and entrance channel to accommodate larger vessels by dredging. The F/EIS reports shall meet the requirements of NEPA, including all applicable federal regulations implementing those statutes.
Evaluation will examine the costs and benefits of this project, as well as the environmental impacts of modifying the maintained dimensions of the existing Federal project within its authorized limits. The purpose of this effort is to conduct a study to assess the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility in the implementation of navigation improvement at Rota Harbor.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 September 6, 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 NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), 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 Joanne Bogart, 202-205-7855.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), 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 Justis Tuia, 202-453-6654.
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.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 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 September 6, 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 Meredith Larson, 202-219-2025.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), 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 September 6, 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 Braden Goetz, 202-245-7405.
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.
On June 30, 2016, Owyhee Hydro LLC filed a revised application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Owyhee Pumped Storage Project (Owyhee Project or project) to be located on Lake Owyhee near Adrian in Malheur County, Oregon. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 1,200-foot-long zoned earth and rockfill or concrete-face rockfill dam forming a lined upper reservoir with a surface area of 109 acres and a storage capacity of 4,035 acre-feet at a maximum surface elevation of 4,320 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) an existing 833 foot-long concrete arch dam forming the existing Lake Owyhee (lower reservoir) with a surface area of 13,900 acres and a storage capacity of 1,120,000 acre-feet at a maximum surface elevation of 2,650 msl; (3) a new 14,100 foot-long conduit connecting the upper and lower reservoirs consisting of a 2,200 foot-long, 17.1 foot-diameter concrete lined low-pressure tunnel, a 7,100 foot-long, 17.1 foot-diameter concrete and steel-lined pressure shaft, and a 4,800-foot-long, 20.5 foot-diameter concrete-lined tailrace; (4) a new 80 feet long by 280 feet wide by 120 feet high powerhouse containing four reversible pump-turbine units rated at 125 megawatts (MW) each for a total capacity of 500 MW; (5) either 2.6 or 8 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting with the Boardman-Hemingway Line, depending on design of infrastructure; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Owyhee Project would be 1,533,000 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Markets and Operations Policy Committee as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The meeting will be held on July 12, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and July 13, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time. The location of the meeting is at the Rushmore Plaza Holiday Inn, 505 North Fifth St., Rapid City, SD 57701. The hotel phone number is (605) 348-4000.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
On June 13, 2016, the Black Canyon Hydro, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (project) to be located at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Seminoe Reservoir on the North Platte River, near Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming. The project would occupy lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Two new intake structures located in Reclamation's 20,291-acre Seminoe Reservoir; (2) two new concrete-faced, rock-fill upper reservoirs—one 85 acres and one 63 acres—located on either side of, and about 1,000 feet above, Seminoe Reservoir; (3) a 3,000-foot-long, 18.8-foot diameter, low pressure tunnel and 1,250-foot-long, 18.8-foot-diameter, pressure shaft leading to a 250-foot-long, 65-foot-wide, 170-foot-high powerhouse located 1,300 feet east of Seminoe Reservoir in an underground cavern with a 2,800-foot-long access tunnel and a 1,300-foot-long, 22.6-foot wide tailrace; (5) a 1,300-foot-long, 22.6-foot-diameter, low pressure tunnel and 1,800-foot-long, 16.1-foot-diameter pressure shaft leading to a 220-foot-long, 55-foot-wide, 120-foot-high powerhouse located 2,800 feet north-northwest of Seminoe reservoir in an underground cavern with a 800-foot-long access tunnel and a 2,800-foot-long, 19.3-foot-diameter tailrace; (6) three 133.3-megawatt (MW) adjustable-speed, reversible pump turbines in the east powerhouse; and (7) three 100-MW adjustable-speed reversible pump-turbines in the west powerhouse. The project would also include a double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line connecting either at PacifiCorp's planned Aeolus Substation located northwest of Medicine Bow, Wyoming, or the planned northern terminal for the TransWest Express DC Line near Sinclair, Wyoming. If the Aeolus interconnection alternative is built, the line would parallel the existing Western Area Power Administration's (WAPA) Miracle Mile-Cheyenne-Ault 230-kV transmission line. If the TransWest interconnection alternative is built, the line would parallel or consist of a rebuild of the existing WAPA Miracle Mile-Sinclair, 115 kV transmission line. The estimated annual generation would be 1,839,600 MW-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Innovative Solar 43, 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 July 20, 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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations part 380, Office of Energy Projects staff has reviewed the application for original license for the Allegheny Lock and Dam 2 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13755-002) on the Allegheny River.
The Allegheny Lock and Dam 2 Hydroelectric Project would be located at an existing lock and dam owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Allegheny River between the boroughs of Sharpsburg and Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County at river mile 6.7. The project would occupy 3.23 acres of federal land.
Staff has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that constructing and operating the project, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Nicholas Ettema at (202) 502-6565 or by email at
On October 9, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-4-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Orion Project (Project), and would deliver an additional 135,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to meet needs of three contracted shippers in the northeast United States.
On October 26, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's
Issuance of EA—August 23, 2016.
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—November 21, 2016.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Tennessee proposes to construct and operate pipeline facilities, modify existing aboveground facilities, and add new tie-in facilities in Wayne and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania.
The Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Approximately 12.9 miles of new 36-inch-diameter looping
• a new internal pipeline inspection (“pig”)
• a new pig receiver, crossover, and connecting facilities at the end of the proposed pipeline loop in Pike County; and
• modifications at Tennessee's existing Compressor Station 323, including rewheeling/restaging of an existing compressor and other piping and appurtenant modifications.
On November 23, 2015, the Commission issued a
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Revision to FR Notice Published06/10/2016; Extending Review Period from 07/11/2016 to 08/11/2016.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability and public comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted on its Web site a draft guidance document titled, “Draft Guidance on Progress Tracking Metrics, Long-Term Strategies, Reasonable Progress Goals and Other Requirements for Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation
Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2016. Please refer to
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0289, at
For general questions concerning this draft guidance document, please contact Phil Lorang, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5463, email at
The purpose of the draft document on which the EPA is inviting public comment is to provide useful background information and guidance to states on how to develop and submit regional haze state implementation plans (SIPs) for the second implementation period (2018-2028), which under a proposed revision to the Regional Haze Rule published on May 4, 2016,
1.
2.
• Identify the draft guidance by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
The EPA has also established a Web site for this draft guidance at
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10293, Haven Trust Bank Florida, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Haven Trust Bank Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective July 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceeding, or arbitration. Information the premature disclosure of
Judith Ingram, Press Officer; Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 4, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by September 6, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
2.
3.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics.” This draft guidance document describes how publicly accessible databases of human genetic variants can serve as sources of valid scientific evidence to support the clinical validity of genotype-phenotype relationships in FDA's regulatory review of next generation sequencing (NGS)-based tests. This draft guidance further outlines the process by which administrators of genetic variant databases could voluntarily apply to FDA for recognition, and how FDA would review such applications and periodically reevaluate recognized databases. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 6, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Personalized Medicine Staff, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4546, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7561,
This draft guidance document describes one part of FDA's effort to create a flexible regulatory approach to the oversight of NGS-based tests as part of the White House's Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI). FDA held two workshops on this issue: “Use of Databases for Establishing the Clinical Relevance of Human Genetic Variants” on November 13, 2015, and “Patient and Medical Professional Perspectives on the Return of Genetic Test Results” on March 2, 2016. The goal of this effort is to help ensure patients receive accurate and meaningful results, while promoting innovation in test development. This draft guidance document describes how publicly accessible databases of human genetic variants can serve as sources of valid scientific evidence to support the clinical validity of genotype-phenotype relationships in FDA's regulatory review of NGS-based tests. FDA is also issuing a draft guidance entitled “Use of Standards in FDA Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases” which is being released concurrently elsewhere in this issue of the
NGS can enable rapid, broad, and deep sequencing of a portion of a gene, entire exome(s), or a whole genome and may be used clinically for a variety of diagnostic purposes, including risk prediction, diagnosis, and treatment selection for a disease or condition. The rapid adoption of NGS-based tests in both research and clinical practice is leading to identification of an increasing number of genetic variants (
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The draft guidance document “Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics” describes FDA's considerations in determining whether a genetic variant database is a source of valid scientific evidence that could support the clinical validity of an NGS-based test. This draft guidance further outlines the process by which administrators
Based on our experience and the nature of the information, we estimate that it will take an average of 80 hours to complete and submit an application for recognition. We estimate that maintenance of recognition activities will take approximately one-fourth of that time (20 hours) annually. We estimate that it will take approximately 1 hour to post the information on the Web site.
Respondents are administrators of genetic databases. Our estimate of five respondents per year is based on the current number of databases that may meet FDA recommendations for recognition and seek such recognition.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756. The collections of information regarding premarket submissions have been approved as follows: The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.
The Agency invites comments on the draft guidance document entitled “Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics,” in general, and on the following questions, in particular:
1. Should the quality recommendations outlined in the guidance apply equally to databases of somatic variants and to germline variants?
2. While this document applies to NGS-based tests, FDA expects that it may also be relevant to genetic tests that use other technologies (
3. FDA recognizes that the evidence linking specific variants to diseases or conditions will change over time, and as such, assertions about those variants may also change. If an assertion regarding a variant changes over time, how should FDA assess what regulatory actions may be appropriate with respect to in IVDs supported by such assertions? How often should FDA conduct ongoing review of an FDA-recognized database?
4. FDA notes that databases may have “discordant calls” with other databases, where the assertions for a variant in each database vary. While FDA believes that these discordant calls often arise because one database has information the other does not and our proposed policy will mitigate these issues over time; what, if any, action should FDA take when it learns about discordant calls between two databases with respect to database recognition or IVDs supported by such calls in FDA-recognized databases?
5. FDA has requested information regarding conflicts of interest for curators and personnel of databases seeking FDA recognition. FDA acknowledges that many personnel involved with variant curation and interpretation may have some connection to NGS test developers. What type of information should FDA collect and what policies should it implement to mitigate such potential conflicts of interest in FDA-recognized databases?
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Use of Standards in FDA Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases.” As part of the White House's Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI),
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 6, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Personalized Medicine Staff, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4544, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6206; or
As part of the PMI, FDA is committed to implementing a flexible and adaptive regulatory oversight approach, which fosters innovation and simultaneously assures that patients have access to accurate and meaningful test results. FDA held two public workshops on this issue: “Optimizing FDA's Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing Diagnostic Tests Public Workshop” held on February 20, 2015, and “Standards Based Approach to Analytical Performance Evaluation of Next Generation Sequencing In Vitro Diagnostic Tests” held on November 12, 2016. This guidance document, when finalized, provides recommendations for designing, developing, and validating for targeted and whole exome human DNA sequencing (WES) NGS-based tests intended to aid in the diagnosis of individuals with suspected germline diseases or other conditions (hereinafter referred to as “NGS-based tests for germline diseases” or “NGS-based tests”). It also outlines considerations for possibly classifying certain NGS-based tests for germline diseases in class II and exempting them from premarket notification requirements. Upon finalization of this guidance, these recommendations should be used as guidelines for test developers for premarket submissions. However, the longe